Rubit Zuniga Aguirre v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 549 F. App'x 664 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBIT ANABELI ZUNIGA AGUIRRE, No. 11-72789
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-920-604
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rubit Anabeli Zuniga Aguirre, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for special
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims. Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s factual determination that
Zuniga Aguirre is not eligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d
1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (the court is precluded from reviewing the agency’s
factual determination that an immigrant is ineligible for special rule cancellation of
removal under NACARA).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Zuniga Aguirre’s contention that under
Chaly-Garcia v. United States, 508 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2007), the asylum
application she allegedly filed in May 1990 should qualify her for benefits under
the ABC settlement agreement, because she failed to raise this contention before
the agency, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron,
358 F.3d at 678.
Zuniga Aguirre’s claim that she was not given an opportunity to testify
regarding her eligibility for NACARA relief is unavailing where she was given
such an opportunity during her removal proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204
2 11-72789
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 11-72789