David Santiago-Espinoza v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID VLADIMIR SANTIAGO- No. 17-72991
ESPINOZA,
Agency No. A205-710-664
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
David Vladimir Santiago-Espinoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Because Santiago-Espinoza does not challenge the agency’s determinations
that asylum was time barred and that he failed to establish nexus to any protected
ground, these issues are forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Santiago-Espinoza also does not challenge, and therefore forfeits, the
agency’s determination that he failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See id.We reject as unsupported by the record Santiago-Espinoza’s contention that
the BIA failed to adequately explain its decision or otherwise erred in its analysis.
Santiago-Espinoza’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,
1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to
appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8
C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Santiago-Espinoza’s contention that he is
2 17-72991
now eligible for cancellation of removal, because he failed to raise the issue before
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 17-72991