Eduardo Rene Torres- Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO RENE TORRES-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70448
Agency No. A089-778-370
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Rene Torres-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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
OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70448
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ledezma-Cosino v.
Sessions, 857 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Torres-
Hernandez did not establish good moral character, where he failed to prove that he
was confined for a period of less than 180 days. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(7),
1229b(b)(1)(B); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (applicant for
removal relief bears the burden of establishing eligibility for discretionary relief).
To the extent Torres-Hernandez contends he received ineffective assistance
of counsel, we lack jurisdiction to consider the claim because he failed to raise it
before 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); see also
Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2007) (indicating that ineffective
assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --