T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T HE L MA AR C I R I A A C E VE DO RAM I RE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72367 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 805- 909 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry15, 2013 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , B E A , an dN G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T hel m a A rc i ri a A ce vedo R am i re z, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f G uat em al a, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) deci si on denyi ng her 

# FI LED JAN 16 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72367 2 appl i cat i on for s peci alrul e c ance l l at i on of re m ov alun der the N i cara gu an A d ju s tm e n t an dC e n tr a l A m e r ic a n R e lie f A c t ( “N A C A R A ” ) . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tA c e ve do R a m ir e z is n o t e lig ib le f o rN A C A R A r e lie f

. See Ixco t

v. H o lder, 646 F . 3d 1202, 12 13 -14 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). T o the ext entA ce vedo R am i re z c on t ends the B IA ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s are erro n eo u s an dth atth e B IA fai l edt o p ro p erl y co n si d er th e ev i d en ce, th ese c o n te n tio n s d o n o t a m o u n t to c o lo r ab le c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Se e M ar t i nez - R os as v. G o n za les, 424 F . 3d 926, 930 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ T ] r a di t i ona l abus e of di s c r e t i on c h a lle n g e s r e c a s t a s a lle g e ddu e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s d o n o t c o n s titu te c o lo r ab le const i tut i on alcl ai m s thatw ou l d i nv ok e our j uri sdi ct i on . ”) . A c e v e d o R a m ir e z a ls o c o n te n d s th at th e I Jv io la te dh e rdu e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b e c au s e h e w a s b ia s e da n dp r e ju d g e dh e rc a s e . T h is c o n te n tio n w a s n o t r a is e dto th e B I A a n dis th e r e f

o r e u n e x h au s te d . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 678 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( thi s c ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cont ent i on s notra i se d b ef ore th e a g e n c y ) . I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, w e ne e d notr e a c h A c e ve do R a m i r e z ’ s r e m a i ni ng co n t en t i o n s.09- 72367 3 F e d e r a l r e g u la tio n s r e q u ir e th a t “a n yg r a n t o f v o lu n taryd e p a rtu r e s h a ll t e rm i na t e aut om a t i c a l l yupon the f i l i ng of the pe t i t i on orothe rj udi c i a l c ha l l e nge a n dth e a lte rn a te o r d e ro f r e m o v a l . . . s h a ll im m e d ia te lyta k e e f f e c t.” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .2 6 ( i) ; see G a rf

i a s-R o dri g u ez v. H

o lder, N o. 09- 72603, 2012 W L 5077137, a t* 16- 20 ( 9th C i r . O c t . 19, 2012) ( e n ba nc ) . T he s t a ygr a nt e d bythi s c ourton O ct ob er27 , 20 09 , i s l i ft ed; ho w ever , i f s he com pl i es w i th the re qu i re m ent s of 8 C . F . R . § 1240. 26( i ) , byde pa rt i ng w i thi n thi rtyda y s , A c e ve do R a m i r e z s ha l l notbe d e e m e dto h a v e d e p a rte du n d e rth e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D.