Jorge Alberto Garcia Rivera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALBERTO GARCIA RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70066
Agency No. A073-893-962
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Alberto Garcia Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
special rule cancellation of removal under § 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
* 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
DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70066
Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia Rivera’s contentions that the IJ
violated his right to due process by being impartial because he failed to raise them
to the BIA. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process
claims based on correctable procedural errors may not be entertained unless they
were raised below).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of NACARA relief as a matter
of discretion where Garcia Rivera’s challenges to the determination do not raise a
colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See
Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of the discretionary denial of NACARA relief and
concluding that no reviewable issue was raised where petitioner “simply
disagree[d] with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative
factors”).
We further lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia Rivera’s contentions
challenging the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims
because he did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70066
below). Garcia Rivera’s contention that the court otherwise has jurisdiction to
consider his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims because it would be
a manifest injustice not to do so lacks merit.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --