Opinion
16-71613
03-22-2022
CRISTIAN QUINONEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-923-982
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Cristian Quinonez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Quinonez-Gonzalez's contentions concerning nexus to a protected ground 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); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement applies to "streamlined" decisions). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review as to Quinonez-Gonzalez's asylum claim.
We also lack jurisdiction to review Quinonez-Gonzalez's contentions as to the merits of his withholding of removal and CAT claims because he failed to raise them to the BIA, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78, and we dismiss the petition for review as to those claims.
Quinonez-Gonzalez's challenge to the BIA's streamlining procedure fails. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA's streamlined decision did not violate due process); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.