NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOLORES ANTONIA LARA-CRUZ; No. 15-71384 JOSE ALFREDO MADRID-LARA, Agency Nos. A087-537-497 Petitioners, A087-537-498 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 30, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Dolores Antonia Lara-Cruz (“Lara-Cruz”), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her * 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). application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review. Lara-Cruz does not challenge the agency’s denial of her application for asylum as time-barred, nor does she challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection. She did not raise the timeliness of her asylum application in her appeal to the BIA, and she did not raise either issue in her opening brief to this court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims); Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara-Cruz’s arguments regarding the agency’s adverse credibility determination because she did not adequately raise the issue of credibility before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78; Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 1 Jose Alfredo Madrid-Lara (“Madrid-Lara”) is Lara-Cruz’s son. Lara-Cruz and Madrid-Lara have waived any arguments related to Madrid-Lara’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are “deemed waived”). 2 15-71384 15-71384 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Dolores Lara-Cruz v. Merrick Garland 2 July 2021 Agency Unpublished e76a50a89ea319cea5502b45dce39809bbb64186
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals