Maglori Martinez-Herrera v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAGLORI MARTINEZ-HERRERA, AKA No. 14-73532
Sonia Vasquez-Perez,
Agency No. A072-990-842
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maglori Martinez-Herrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding that Martinez-Herrera abandoned her
application for asylum and related relief. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an application
abandoned, Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013), and we review de
novo claims of due process violations, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Martinez-Herrera
abandoned her application for relief, where she did not file a completed application
with the immigration court by the deadline the IJ imposed. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.31(c) (if an application “is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the
opportunity to file that application . . . shall be deemed waived”). We reject as
unpersuasive Martinez-Herrera’s contention that her application was not
abandoned under Matter of Interiano-Rosa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 264 (BIA 2010)
(where an application for relief is timely filed but lacking supporting documents,
an IJ may deem the opportunity to file the documents waived, but may not deem
the application itself abandoned), where her application form was not complete as
submitted.
Martinez-Herrera’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or
arguments, and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision are not
supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“[t]he [agency] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”
(internal quotes omitted)).
2 14-73532
Accordingly, Martinez-Herrera’s contentions that her proceedings and the
BIA’s decision violated due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Herrera’s unexhausted challenges
to the agency’s decision not to grant her an additional continuance. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010); Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487,
492 (9th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion requires a petitioner to put the BIA on notice as to
specific issues such that the agency had an opportunity to pass on those issues).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73532