NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAMELA HERNANDEZ ORTEGA, Nos. 21-940 22-924 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-082-558 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 9, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: HURWITZ and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KANE,*** District Judge. In these consolidated petitions for review, Pamela Hernandez Ortega, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of orders of the Board of Immigration * 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). *** The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum and related relief from removal and denying her motions to remand and reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review in No. 21-940 and deny the petition for review in No. 22-924.1 “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020), and review constitutional and legal questions de novo, Roy v. Barr, 960 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the BIA’s decision to deny a motion to remand or reopen for abuse of discretion and will not reverse unless the BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097–98 (9th Cir. 2005). 1. We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez Ortega’s claims that changed circumstances excused her failure to file an asylum application within one year of her arrival in the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) and that she is eligible for special rule cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A). She did not 1 Accordingly, we deny the motions to stay removal (Dkt. No. 3 in both No. 21- 940 and No. 22-924) as moot. 2 present those claims to the agency and therefore failed to administratively exhaust them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). Because the untimeliness of her asylum application was dispositive, the BIA was not required to address her other asylum-related contentions. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). 2. The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hernandez Ortega’s state court conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was a particularly serious crime, rendering her ineligible …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals