Soto-Plata v. Holder, 082211 FED9, 09-70487

Docket Nº:09-70487
Party Name:JUAN CARLOS SOTO-PLATA, MARIA TERESA SOTO and NAYELI SOTO-PINEDA Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 22, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JUAN CARLOS SOTO-PLATA, MARIA TERESA SOTO and NAYELI SOTO-PINEDA Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70487

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 22, 2011

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 22, 2011 [**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A095-179-779, A095-179-780, A095-179-781

Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Juan Carlos Soto-Plata ("Juan"), Maria Teresa Soto ("Maria"), and Nayeli Soto-Pineda ("Nayeli") (collectively the "Soto-Platas") are natives and citizens of Mexico who seek to reopen their applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). On the advice of Julio Cortez ("Cortez"), whom they falsely believed to be an attorney, the Soto-Platas withdrew their asylum application and applied for cancellation of removal shortly after being placed in removal proceedings. The immigration judge ("IJ") found each of them statutorily ineligible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed. Several years later, the Soto-Platas filed motions to reconsider and then to reopen. The BIA denied both as untimely. We deny the Soto-Platas' petition as to their cancellation of removal and CAT claims and dismiss the petition as to their asylum and withholding of removal claims.

The facts are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We lack jurisdiction to review claims that were not presented to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Although the petition for review argues that the Soto-Platas are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, neither the motion to reopen nor the Soto-Platas' brief in support of that motion addressed these claims. We therefore dismiss the petition with respect to the asylum and withholding of removal claims.

We review the BIA's refusal to grant the motion to reopen the Soto-Platas' claims for cancellation of removal and CAT relief for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (stating that motions to reopen are disfavored). We review the BIA's legal determinations de novo and its factual determinations for substantial evidence. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP