Meijin You v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEIJIN YOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70551
19-71567
Agency No. A216-267-733
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Meijin You, a native and citizen
of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70551
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion to reconsider.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In 19-70551, we dismiss the
petition for review. In 19-71567, we deny the petition for review.
As to petition No. 19-70551, we lack jurisdiction to consider You’s
contentions concerning the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the merits of
her claims because she 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); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2004)
(exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” decisions, and “a general
challenge to the IJ’s decision” is not sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement). Thus, we dismiss the petition for review.
As to petition No. 19-71567, because You does not challenge the BIA’s
denial of her motion for reconsideration, this issue is waived. 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). We thus deny the petition for
review.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
NO. 19-70551: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
NO. 19-71567: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --