Jose Omar Ortega-Balderrama v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE OMAR ORTEGA-BALDERRAMA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71999
Agency No. A200-978-730
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Omar Ortega-Balderrama, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71999
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, and review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,
770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ortega-Balderrama’s challenge to the IJ’s
denial of CAT relief because he failed to raise the issue 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 agency).
We reject, as unsupported by the record, Ortega-Balderrama’s contention
that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to review the IJ’s
determination that his asylum application was time-barred. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Ortega-Balderrama does not otherwise challenge the agency’s time-bar finding.
Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim.
The agency found that the harm Ortega-Balderrama experienced from his
father was due to his failure to comply with his father’s demands that he participate
in illegal activities and not based on his membership in his family. The record does
not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71999
supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Ortega-Balderrama’s withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --