Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ewing Redmond SAMUELS, aka Ewing Redmond Samuels III, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Ewing Redmond Samuels, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and that he abandoned the opportunity to file an asylum application. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Samuels does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA's determination not to remand for further competency analysis, the agency's removability determination, or the agency's finding that he abandoned his opportunity to apply for asylum. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
Samuels's contentions that the IJ and the BIA violated his right to due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
We do not consider the materials Samuels references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Samuels's contentions as to the validity of his criminal conviction because the issue is not properly before the court. See Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner may not collaterally attack the state court conviction on which his removal order was based in a petition for review of a BIA decision). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Samuels's remaining challenges related to his conviction.
Samuels's emergency motion (Docket Entry No. 27) is denied. To the extent Samuels seeks to challenge his detention, he must seek relief in district court.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-71137
Decided: February 19, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)