Cristian Quinonez-Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTIAN QUINONEZ-GONZALEZ, No. 16-71613
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-923-982
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Cristian Quinonez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Quinonez-Gonzalez’s contentions concerning
nexus to a protected ground because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931
(9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” decisions). Thus,
we dismiss the petition for review as to Quinonez-Gonzalez’s asylum claim.
We also lack jurisdiction to review Quinonez-Gonzalez’s contentions as to
the merits of his withholding of removal and CAT claims because he failed to raise
them to the BIA, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78, and we dismiss the petition for
review as to those claims.
Quinonez-Gonzalez’s challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure fails.
See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (BIA’s
streamlined decision did not violate due process); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a due process claim).
2 16-71613
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 16-71613