Opinion
No. 20-70572
02-19-2021
DALILA ELIZABETH M. MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A073-402-255 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Dalila Elizabeth M. Montoya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. 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.
Montoya's contentions that the agency violated her right to due process in regard to her cancellation of removal application fail. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) ("To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice."). The record does not support Montoya's contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently develop the record, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 373-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining the IJ's duty to fully develop the record when an applicant appears pro se); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Montoya's due process contentions regarding the IJ's failure to advise and consider Montoya for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
As stated in the court's order of April 23, 2020, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.