Ismael Alvarenga-Garcia, a.k.a. Ismael Antonio Rivera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL ALVARENGA-GARCIA, a.k.a.
Ismael Antonio Rivera,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71042
Agency No. A095-012-958
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Alvarenga-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order reinstating removal
proceedings and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the
FILED
JUN 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar
v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarenga-Garcia’s CAT claim because he
failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarenga-Garcia’s contentions
related to political opinion. See id. Alvarenga-Garcia does not otherwise
challenge the BIA’s denial of his withholding of removal claim. 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).
We reject Alvarenga-Garcia’s claim that the BIA violated his due process
rights by reinstating his removal proceedings without providing him with notice
and an opportunity to request review of his eligibility for Temporary Protected
Status (“TPS”) because he failed to establish prejudice. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i) (having two or more misdemeanor convictions renders alien
ineligible for TPS); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
09-71042 2

-- 2 of 2 --