Yolany Benavides-Garcia v. Merrick Garland

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Yolany Benavides-Garcia v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOLANY ROSIBEL BENAVIDES- No. 20-71847 GARCIA; et al,

Agency Nos. A201-755-264

Petitioners, A201-755-265 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 1, 2022** Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yolany Rosibel Benavides-Garcia and her daughter, citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

*

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). Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The petitioners did not challenge before the BIA the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. These claims are unexhausted and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

We are not persuaded by the petitioners’ contentions that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise violated their due process rights. Rather, the record reflects that the petitioners received a full and fair hearing. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the [applicant] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 20-71847

Reference

Status
Unpublished