Lourdes Garcia Bernal v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOURDES GARCIA BERNAL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70632
Agency No. A095-776-087
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lourdes Garcia Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming without opinion the results of the Immigration Judge’s denial of
FILED
FEB 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal. This court lacks jurisdiction to
review the agency’s discretionary determination of hardship. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B); Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam).
Petitioner raises other challenges to the Immigration Judge’s handling of her
case but failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952,
960 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Exhaustion requires a non-constitutional legal claim to the
court on appeal to have first been raised in the administrative proceeds below, . . . ,
and to have been sufficient to put the BIA on notice of what was being challenged .
. .”) (internal citations omitted).
Because we lack jurisdiction to review any of the petitioner’s claims, we
need not address whether the BIA’s decision was based upon alternate holdings.
See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 924-25 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --