Court Opinion

ID: 9363252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:14.424934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.165730
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 19 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERONICA SANCHEZ TORRES,                        No.    17-73008

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A201-212-091

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before:      WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Veronica Sanchez Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of

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

      *
             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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations in

immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Sanchez Torres’s convictions for

petty theft under California Penal Code sections 484 and 666 are crimes involving

moral turpitude that render her ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(C); Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 710, 717 (9th Cir. 2021)

(California theft constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude).

      We do not address Sanchez Torres’s contentions as to exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship or other eligibility requirements for cancellation of

removal because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision

of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez Torres’s contention that she is

eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection because she failed

to raise these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the BIA).

      To the extent Sanchez Torres contends that the BIA violated due process,

she has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a

                                          2                                   17-73008
due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and

prejudice.”).

      We do not consider the materials Sanchez Torres references and attaches to

her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,

79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3                                   17-73008