Maria Delfina Garcia Sarabia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DELFINA GARCIA SARABIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 17-70662
17-72131
Agency No. A202-097-447
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Maria Delfina Garcia Sarabia, a native and
citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70662/17-72131
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 17-70662) and of the BIA’s
order denying her motion to reconsider (petition No. 17-72131). Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider.
Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 17-70662, we lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia
Sarabia’s contentions regarding her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
claims because these claims were not presented to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
As to petition No. 17-72131, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion to reconsider where Garcia Sarabia failed to allege any legal or factual
error. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (stating that a motion to reconsider “shall state
the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board
decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority”); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,
272 F.3d 1176, 1180, n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70662/17-72131
Garcia Sarabia’s motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied. See
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to
appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the
immigration court).
No. 17-70662: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
No. 17-72131: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --