Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymundo Perez SANCHEZ, AKA Raymunda Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72788
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED July 26, 2016
    Dori L. Zavala, Esquire, Attorney, Zava-la Law Offices, LLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Petitioner
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymundo Perez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Perez Sanchez’s appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985) (summary dismissal appropriate where Notice of Appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate written brief was filed).

We lack jurisdiction to' consider Perez Sanchez’s contentions challenging the IJ’s denial of relief because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues in administrative proceedings below).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.