N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ELIZAB ETH FR

AYR E-GAR C IA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-74245 Age n c y No. A070-642-776 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN a nd TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge s a

nd LASNIK, Se nior Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED FEB 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt S. La snik, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de s igna tion.Eliz a

be th Fra yre -Garc ia , a

native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of an orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings for c onside ra tion of a djustm e nt of sta tus, c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l, a sy l um , withholding of rem ova l , prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , a dm inistra tive c losing in the

e xe rc ise of prose c utoria l disc re tion, and, in thea l te rna t ive , volunta ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Our jurisdic tion, howe v e r, is lim ite d to re vie w of a rgum e nts ra ise d

be fore the B IA. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Zara v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th C ir. 2004). Pe titione r ra i s e s two a rgum e nts not a dva

n c e d be fore the B IA: 1) tha

t he r prior c ounse l provide d ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e by fa iling to pre se nt e vide nc e tha t he r prior c onvic tion wa s not for a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitudeand thus doe s not ba r he r from

be i ng e ligible for volunta ry de pa rture ; a nd 2) tha t she is e ligible for de rivative a sy l um . W e do not ha ve jurisdic t ion to c onside r the se argum e nts, and the re fore the pe tition is dism isse d in pa

rt. Fra yre -Garc ia

ha s not c ha lle nge d the B IA’ s findings tha t she fa ile d to e sta blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for a djustm e nt of sta

tus a n d c anc e lla t ion of re m ova l. Nor ha s Frayre -Garc ia que stione d

the B IA’ s e xpla

nation tha t it doe s not have the a

uthority to e xe rc ise prose c utoria l disc re tion. W e will not c onside r the se 2issue s. Se e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (holding tha t issue s not prope rly

ra ise d be fore the a

p pe lla te c ourt a re de e m e d wa ive d). W hat re m a i ns for our re vie w is Fra yre -Garc ia ’ s c la im

tha t the B IA e rre d in de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n for c onside ra tion of he r e ligibility for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion the de nia l of a m otion to re o pe n, a

nd “ m ay grant re lie f only

if the B IA a c te d a

rbitra rily , irrationa lly , or c ontra ry to la w.” Lope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Fra yre -Garc ia ’ s m otion to re o pe n b e c a

use the B IA c onside re d

the lim ite d

e vide n c e subm itte d in support of pe titione r’ s c l a im and a c te d within its broa d disc re t ion in de te rm ining that Fra yre -Garc ia

fa ile d to de m onstra

te prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for re lie f. I.N

.S. v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988) (B IA m ay de ny a m otion to re ope n if the m ova nt ha s not e sta

blishe d a prim a fa c i e c a se for the unde rly ing re lie f sought); K otasz v . I.N .S. , 31 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th C ir. 1994) (a s y lum a pplic ant m

ust show pa

rtic ula r risk diffe re nt from

risk fa c e d by

fe llow c itiz e ns). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3