NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELIDA MARICELA LAPOP-HERRERA; No. 18-70825 et al., Agency Nos. A206-886-589 Petitioners, A206-886-590 A206-886-591 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Melida Maricela Lapop-Herrera (“Lapop-Herrera”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the 2018 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reconsider a prior 2017 ruling in which the BIA had affirmed the denial of her applications for asylum and 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 that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). removal.1 Under section 242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order denying reconsideration.2 We review that order for abuse of discretion, although de novo review applies to the BIA’s resolution of purely legal issues. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. A motion for reconsideration “must identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior decision.” Ma, 361 F.3d at 558; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Lapop-Herrera did not contend in her motion for reconsideration, and does not contend in her appellate brief, that the BIA’s prior decision affirmatively misstated any fact. She instead contends that reconsideration should have been granted because the BIA’s 2017 ruling overlooked material evidence in the record that supported her claims and because that ruling was erroneous and contrary to law. These arguments are unavailing, and we find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s 1 Lapop-Herrera’s asylum application also applies, derivatively, to her two minor children. Although Lapop-Herrera’s opening brief also mentions in passing her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture, she failed to raise that claim before the BIA or to present any argument on the point in her appellate brief. We therefore decline to consider the issue. 2 Lapop-Herrera did not file a separate petition for review of the underlying 2017 ruling. As a result, that decision is not itself directly before the court. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 393–95 (1995). Nonetheless, our review of the BIA’s order denying reconsideration necessarily requires us to examine the relevant aspects of the BIA’s prior order. See Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 557–58 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 denial of reconsideration. Absent contrary indication in the BIA’s decision, we presume that “‘the BIA reviewed the specific findings of the immigration judge in light of the record.’” Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Man v. INS, 69 F.3d 835, 838 (7th Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals