NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAOLO ANTONIO LIMA-FERREIRA, No. 12-74179 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-638-449 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and KANE,*** District Judge. * 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. Paolo1 Antonio Lima-Ferreira, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction2 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen on two independent grounds. First, the BIA rejected Lima-Ferreira’s argument that he suffered prejudice on procedural grounds, finding that Lima-Ferreira had not presented the argument before the IJ. Second, the BIA observed that even if it were to consider the merits of Lima-Ferreira’s procedurally defaulted argument, the BIA still would not find prejudice. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in relying on either of these two grounds for upholding the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen. 1. The BIA did not err in finding that Lima-Ferreira forfeited his prejudice argument because he raised it for the first time on appeal to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the BIA 1 In his briefing for this petition for review, Lima-Ferreira spells his first name as “Paulo.” 2 The Government initially contested jurisdiction based on the jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, the Government later withdrew this argument. 2 “does not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained”). 2. The BIA did not err in rejecting Lima-Ferreira’s prejudice argument on the merits because Lima-Ferreira failed to offer any “plausible grounds for relief.” United States v. Jimenez-Marmolejo, 104 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1996). In his appeal to the BIA and the instant petition for review, Lima-Ferreira provided only the bare statement that he was prevented from appealing the denial of his request for voluntary departure and a continuance to file an asylum application. Instead of offering any plausible grounds for voluntary departure or a continuance to file an asylum application, Lima-Ferreira’s briefing for his appeal to the BIA and the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals