Court Opinion

ID: 9370737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 18:00:46.15331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.337888
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             FEB 14 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOURDES GARCIA BERNAL,                           No.   21-70632

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A095-776-087

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted February 10, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Lourdes Garcia Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

affirming without opinion the results of the Immigration Judge’s denial of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. This court lacks jurisdiction to

review the agency’s discretionary determination of hardship. See 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(2)(B); Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021) (per

curiam).

       Petitioner raises other challenges to the Immigration Judge’s handling of her

case but failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952,

960 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the

court on appeal to have first been raised in the administrative proceeds below, . . . ,

and to have been sufficient to put the BIA on notice of what was being challenged .

. .”) (internal citations omitted).

       Because we lack jurisdiction to review any of the petitioner’s claims, we

need not address whether the BIA’s decision was based upon alternate holdings.

See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 924-25 (9th Cir. 2004).

       PETITION DISMISSED.

                                           2