NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR BRUNO ROMERO, No. 21-70590 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-179-196 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Salvador Bruno Romero1, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Although petitioner’s name appears as Salvador Bruno-Romero in the orders issued by the agency, his name appears as Salvador Bruno Romero in the petition for review, opening brief, and reply brief filed in this court. dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Bruno Romero’s appeal as untimely where it was filed past the deadline and Bruno Romero offered no explanation for the delay. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G), 1003.38(b); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA did not abuse its discretion where it did not act “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that Bruno Romero contends, in his reply brief, that the filing delay was on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contention. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues or claims not presented to the agency). We do not address Bruno Romero’s contentions as to his removability and the merits of his cancellation of removal claim because the BIA did not rely on those grounds in deciding Bruno Romero’s appeal. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 21-70590 We do not consider the materials Bruno Romero references in his opening and reply briefs that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 21-70590 21-70590 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Salvador Bruno Romero v. Merrick Garland 19 November 2021 Agency Unpublished 9fc617121b04314287938fa0a72b5fbbf8e4772c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals