Court Opinion

ID: 9374337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:53.249838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.693645
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASTREL DESTINAT; et al.,                        No.    20-72322

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A213-080-705
                                                                  A213-080-706
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Astrel Destinat and his minor son, natives and citizens of Haiti, petition pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision deeming their applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (“CAT”) abandoned, and denying their motion to remand removal

proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion a decision to deem an application waived, and the denial of a

motion to remand. Taggar v. Ashcroft, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioners abandoned

their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by

failing to file them before the deadline imposed by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.31(h) (“If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the

immigration judge, the opportunity to file the application shall be deemed

waived.”); Taggar, 736 F.3d at 890 (no abuse of discretion in finding application

abandoned for failure to file within the IJ-ordered deadline).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

remand, where they failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The BIA is

entitled to deny a motion to reopen where the applicant fails to demonstrate prima

facie eligibility for the underlying relief.”) (citation omitted); Rodriguez v. INS,

841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The formal requirements of the motion to

reopen and those of the motion to remand are for all practical purposes the same.”).

      Petitioners’ claim that the BIA violated due process because they still had

                                           2                                     20-72322
additional time to submit evidence of prima facie eligibility fails for lack of

prejudice. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[P]rejudice…

means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged

violation.”).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ due process contention that

Destinat was unable to understand the interpreter because they did not raise it to

the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner

must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

      Petitioners forfeited any challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013); see also

Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, 3 F.4th 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2021) (statutorily deficient

notice to appear does not trigger the voluntary departure stop-time provision);

Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2019) (new claim based on

change of law may be raised in a motion to reconsider at the agency).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           3                                      20-72322