Court Opinion

ID: 9375017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:51.737465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.900249
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN MANUEL MONAY-MARTINEZ,                     No.    18-71695

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A075-469-859

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 21, 2023**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Manuel Monay-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his

appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of

removal and voluntary departure. We generally lack jurisdiction to review these

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretionary agency determinations, but we retain jurisdiction over “constitutional

claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Accordingly, we have

jurisdiction over Monay-Martinez’s claim that the agency denied him an attorney

because it sounds in due process. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779–80

(9th Cir. 2001). However, we ultimately deny his petition for review.

      A petitioner must exhaust a due process claim based on deprivation of counsel

by raising it before the BIA. Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2013);

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). However, this court does not

assess exhaustion “in a formalistic manner,” particularly where the petitioner is pro

se. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Figueroa v.

Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2008)). Although the administrative record

does not contain the brief that Monay-Martinez filed with the BIA, we conclude that

Monay-Martinez exhausted his claim by raising his lack of counsel in his notice of

appeal to the BIA. See id. at 1084.

      Still, Monay-Martinez’s claim fails on the merits. The record shows that the

IJ gave Monay-Martinez time to find an attorney and obtained his medical records

to ensure that he was competent to represent himself before finally determining that

he waived his right to counsel. No record evidence suggests that the agency denied

Monay-Martinez access to counsel. Therefore, we deny his petition for review.

      DENIED.

                                         2