Guillermo Ernesto Lainez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO ERNESTO LAINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71588
Agency No. A072-516-441
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Ernesto Lainez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71588
questions of law. Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 449 (9th Cir. 2012). We
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Because Lainez was found removable due to his conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude, our jurisdiction to review the agency’s particularly
serious crime determination is limited to constitutional claims and questions of
law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49. Lainez
failed to exhaust his contentions of legal error in the particularly serious crime
determination. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). To the extent he
challenges the agency’s weighing of factors, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See
Pechenkov, 705 F.3d at 448-49 (no jurisdiction to review challenge that the agency
incorrectly weighed the facts). Thus, Lainez’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(d)(2). In light of the disposition as to the particularly serious crime
determination, we do not reach Lainez’s contention concerning the timeliness of
his asylum application. 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.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --