Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0288-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sandra Winefred Folchi GODOY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70800
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 7, 2016  Pasadena, California
    FILED June 09, 2016
    Nikhil M. Shah, I, Esquire, General Attorney, Law Offices of Nikhil M. Shah, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. .
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Attorney, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOULD, MELLOY , and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandra Winefred Folchi Godoy petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. Godoy did not raise before the BIA any of the issues she raises here. “[F]ail-ure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Vargas v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigration & Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987)).

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.