Leydi Flores-Castellan v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEYDI FLORES-CASTELLAN, No. 15-72320
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-836-197
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Leydi Flores-Castellan1, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
*
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).
1
In petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge and in her
Opening Brief, she asserts that her true name is Leydi Flores-Castellon.
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Flores-Castellan failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Flores-Castellan does not raise and therefore has waived challenge to the
BIA’s determination that she waived her asylum and withholding of removal
claims before the IJ. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). We lack jurisdiction to consider Flores-Castellan’s contentions regarding
the merits of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Flores-Castellan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.
To the extent Flores-Castellan contends that the IJ failed to grant her
adequate time to prepare her case or consolidate her case with her minor son’s, we
lack jurisdiction to consider those contentions because she failed to raise them
2 15-72320
before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
To the extent Flores-Castellan raises an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in her opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See id.; see also
Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (ineffective assistance of
counsel claim required exhaustion before the agency by filing a motion to reopen).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72320