Dania Izamar Simeon-Hernandez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIA IZAMAR SIMEON-HERNANDEZ;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72398
Agency Nos. A206-884-496
A206-884-497
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Dania Izamar Simeon-Hernandez and her minor child, natives and citizens
of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering their
* 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). Accordingly, petitioners’
request for oral argument is denied.
FILED
APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72398
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for
review.
Petitioners’ contentions that the agency erred and violated their right to due
process by not advising petitioners of the availability of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief fail where petitioners did not demonstrate apparent
eligibility for those forms of relief. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (error required to prevail on a due process claim); see also Valencia v.
Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (there is no requirement that a
noncitizen be advised of the availability of relief where there is no apparent
eligibility for it). We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions
that the agency erred in analyzing their apparent eligibility for relief.
We do not consider the materials referenced in the opening brief that are
outside the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --