Bulmarck Cruz-Palma v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BULMARCK CRUZ-PALMA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71350
Agency No. A205-711-526
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Bulmarck Cruz-Palma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71350
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We reject as unsupported by the record Cruz-Palma’s contention that he
exhausted the merits of his asylum claim, where the record demonstrates that, in
his counseled appeal brief to the BIA, the only issue raised as to asylum was the
concession that the record did not demonstrate an exception to the one-year filing
deadline. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review Cruz-Palma’s contentions as to
the merits of his asylum claim because he failed to 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 to the agency).
In his opening brief, Cruz-Palma does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
internal relocation determination as to withholding of removal, and also does not
challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Cruz-Palma’s withholding of removal and CAT claims.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Cruz-Palma’s contentions as to
his membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71350
Cruz-Palma also does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that the IJ did not
violate his right to due process. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --