Eber Rivera-Jimenez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Eber Rivera-Jimenez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

565 F. App'x 625

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2014

Docket10-70010

StatusUnpublished

This text of 565 F. App'x 625 (Eber Rivera-Jimenez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eber Rivera-Jimenez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 565 F. App'x 625 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eber Odahir Rivera-Jimenez (“Rivera-Jimenez”), a native of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider a May 28, 2009 decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection trader the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Reviewing the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.

Rivera-Jimenez argues that the BIA abused its discretion in conducting an independent analysis of Rivera-Jimenez’s social group claim. This argument is without merit. The BIA is permitted to review de novo questions of law in appeals from the decision of an IJ. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 n. 3 (9th Cir.2009). Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, “[a]ny error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal standard.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995). Here, the BIA acted well within its authority to review Rivera-Jimenez’s social group claim de novo and did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera-Jimenez’s motion to reconsider on this ground,

Rivera-Jimenez also argues for the first time on appeal that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to review his claim of past persecution from the perspective of a child, as required by Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2007). Although Rivera-Jimenez was a minor when he was allegedly persecuted, he failed to raise this argument before the BIA when he filed his motion to reconsider. Accordingly, Rivera-Jimenez has not exhausted this legal claim and the court is without jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (holding there is no jurisdiction to review legal *626 claims not presented by the petitioner before the BIA).

PETITION DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Eber Odahir Rivera-Jimenez (“Rivera-Jimenez”), a native of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider a May 28, 2009 decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection trader the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Reviewing the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.

Rivera-Jimenez argues that the BIA abused its discretion in conducting an independent analysis of Rivera-Jimenez’s social group claim. This argument is without merit. The BIA is permitted to review de novo questions of law in appeals from the decision of an IJ. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 n. 3 (9th Cir.2009). Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, “[a]ny error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal standard.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995). Here, the BIA acted well within its authority to review Rivera-Jimenez’s social group claim de novo and did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera-Jimenez’s motion to reconsider on this ground,

Rivera-Jimenez also argues for the first time on appeal that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to review his claim of past persecution from the perspective of a child, as required by Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2007). Although Rivera-Jimenez was a minor when he was allegedly persecuted, he failed to raise this argument before the BIA when he filed his motion to reconsider. Accordingly, Rivera-Jimenez has not exhausted this legal claim and the court is without jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (holding there is no jurisdiction to review legal *626 claims not presented by the petitioner before the BIA).

PETITION DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 F. App'x 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eber-rivera-jimenez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack