Dalila Elizabeth M. Montoya v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALILA ELIZABETH M. MONTOYA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70572
Agency No. A073-402-255
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Dalila Elizabeth M. Montoya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70572
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Montoya’s contentions that the agency violated her right to due process in
regard to her cancellation of removal application fail. See Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”). The record
does not support Montoya’s contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently
develop the record, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of her
claims. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 373-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining the
IJ’s duty to fully develop the record when an applicant appears pro se); see also
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Montoya’s due process contentions
regarding the IJ’s failure to advise and consider Montoya for special rule
cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American
Relief Act. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70572
As stated in the court’s order of April 23, 2020, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --