Maria Luisa Pena-Rivera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA LUISA PENA-RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70927
Agency No. A038-102-265
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Luisa Pena-Rivera, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70927
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In her opening brief, Pena-Rivera does not challenge the determinations that
she was convicted of a particularly serious crime, that her ineffective assistance of
counsel claim fails, and that she failed to establish her eligibility for a U visa or the
availability of such relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Pena-Rivera waived her claim for
deferral of removal under CAT. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th
Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA's waiver determination). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Pena-Rivera’s contentions as to the merits of her claim for deferral of
removal under CAT because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented below).
The government’s motion for judicial notice (DE 21) is granted.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --