Opinion
16-71350
02-23-2022
BULMARCK CRUZ-PALMA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-711-526
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bulmarck Cruz-Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 1
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Cruz-Palma's contention that he exhausted the merits of his asylum claim, where the record demonstrates that, in his counseled appeal brief to the BIA, the only issue raised as to asylum was the concession that the record did not demonstrate an exception to the one-year filing deadline. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review Cruz-Palma's contentions as to the merits of his asylum claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
In his opening brief, Cruz-Palma does not challenge the agency's dispositive internal relocation determination as to withholding of removal, and also does not challenge the agency's denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Cruz-Palma's withholding of removal and CAT claims.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Palma's contentions as to his membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). 2
Cruz-Palma also does not challenge the BIA's conclusion that the IJ did not violate his right to due process. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3