From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rugamas-Figueroa v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 19-70462 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)

Opinion

19-70462

10-25-2022

MARVIN ELIAZAR RUGAMAS-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-071-407

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Marvin Rugamas-Figueroa, a 27-year-old native and citizen of El Salvador, appeals the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the denial by an Immigration Judge ("IJ") of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").

Petitioner's true name is Marvin Eliazar Figueroa Gabriel, but for consistency with the record and his counsel's briefing in this appeal, we refer to him as Rugamas-Figueroa.

1. We lack jurisdiction to review Rugamas-Figueroa's adverse credibility challenge because he did not exhaust this issue before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Rugamas-Figueroa's notice of appeal to the BIA stated broadly that he was challenging the IJ's order because the "IJ denied respondent's relief without completely taking into consideration the facts and law." This "general challenge" to the IJ's denial of relief was insufficient to put the BIA on notice that he sought to challenge the adverse credibility determination. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020) ("A petitioner must do more than make a 'general challenge to the IJ's decision.'" (quoting Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)). C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3).

3. The IJ did not err in holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) rendered Rugamas-Figueroa statutorily ineligible for asylum because he was subject to a reinstated order of removal. See Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1082 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DENIED.

[*] 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).


Summaries of

Rugamas-Figueroa v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 19-70462 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)
Case details for

Rugamas-Figueroa v. Garland

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN ELIAZAR RUGAMAS-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 25, 2022

Citations

No. 19-70462 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)