NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBY ESTELLA GARIBALDI, AKA Ruby 

Estella Ortega Garibaldi, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70507 

Agency No. A095-771-559 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,** District Judge.

Ruby Garibaldi (“Garibaldi” or “Petitioner”), a native of Mexico who was 

brought to the United States as an infant, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the 

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering her removal to Mexico. Garibaldi’s petition is

based upon her contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in the 

aforementioned proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and

we review de novo legal determinations and constitutional questions. Guan 

v. Barr, 925 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Diaz–Jimenez v. Sessions, 

902 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018)). We dismiss Garibaldi’s petition for review for 

lack of jurisdiction.

1

 

Garibaldi’s petition to this Court only raises ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims, which were raised for the first time before this Court.

2

 However, 

petitioners generally cannot raise unexhausted claims not raised in the first instance 

before the BIA, particularly claims that could have been corrected by the BIA. See 

Vilchiz–Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]o the extent 

petitioners contend they received ineffective assistance of counsel, we lack 

jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims that could have been corrected by the 

1 We further deny Petitioner’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of (1) a letter from 

the State Bar of Arizona and (2) a liability release because the Immigration and 

Nationality Act “limits our review to the ‘administrative record upon which the 

deportation order is based and the Attorney General’s findings of fact.’” See

Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

2 Petitioner does not argue in her petition for review that the BIA made any error in 

its decision to affirm the IJ, and she therefore waives any challenge not premised 

on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 

1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that issues not raised in the opening brief are 

considered waived). 
3 

BIA.”); Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2007); Barron v. Ashcroft, 

358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 426 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because Garibaldi raises unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claims for 

the first time before this Court, we lack jurisdiction to review them.3 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 

3 While we are unable to review Petitioner’s claims, she may be able to file a 

motion to reopen before the BIA. At oral argument, counsel for the Government

indicated that Petitioner could file such a motion, although counsel took no 

position on the merits of the motion or whether the Department of Homeland 

Security would oppose it.