NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORENA FUENTES DE RAMIREZ, No. 18-73358 19-72883 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-924-017 v. JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 11, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Lorena Fuentes de Ramirez and her two children, who are natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Fuentes de Ramirez also argues that the agency2 lacked jurisdiction and violated her due process rights, and that it erred in denying her request for a continuance to allow for consolidation of her proceedings with her husband’s. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Fuentes de Ramirez moved to terminate her proceedings, arguing that she was improperly denied a credible fear interview, and that the IJ consequently lacked jurisdiction over her applications. We review questions of law de novo, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). The government properly exercised its discretion by placing Fuentes de Ramirez in regular removal proceedings, Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 520, 521-22 (BIA 2011)), which do not require a credible fear interview, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Contrary to Fuentes de Ramirez’s argument, 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(a)’s grant of initial jurisdiction to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not apply here. See 1 Because Fuentes de Ramirez’s children’s applications are derivative and allege no claims independent of their mother’s, this disposition refers to Fuentes de Ramirez’s petition in the singular for simplicity. 2 We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as “the agency.” See Medina- Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that this court will review both the BIA and the IJ’s decisions when the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994)). 2 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(b). Alternatively, Fuentes de Ramirez argues that her due process rights were violated because she was entitled to a credible fear interview. We apply de novo review to claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). Even if it had been an error to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals