Heidy Martinez-Santiago v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 22, 2022
• Docket: 15-72612
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEIDY JOHANA MARTINEZ- No. 15-72612 SANTIAGO; MARIO ROBERTO MARTINEZ-SANTIAGO, Agency Nos. A088-018-120 A095-931-536 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Heidy Johana Martinez-Santiago and Mario Roberto Martinez-Santiago,

natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

* 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). decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of petitioners’ claims as to their

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because they failed

to raise them before the BIA. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.

2010) (“[Petitioner’s] failure to assert [a] claim before the BIA deprived it of the

opportunity to address the issue and divests us of jurisdiction to review it.”).

In petitioners’ opening brief they do not challenge, and therefore waive, the

BIA’s determination that they failed to establish their former counsel provided

ineffective assistance. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 15-72612