EBER RIVERA-JIMENEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70010 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 24 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EBER ODAHIR RIVERA-JIMENEZ, No. 10-70010 Agency No. A098-592-796 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 11, 2014** Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Eber Odahir Rivera-Jimenez ( Rivera-Jimenez ), a native of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) denying his motion to reconsider a May 28, 2009 decision affirming an Immigration Judge s ( IJ ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Reviewing the BIA s denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review. Rivera-Jimenez argues that the BIA abused its discretion in conducting an independent analysis of Rivera-Jimenez s social group claim. This argument is without merit. The BIA is permitted to review de novo questions of law in appeals from the decision of an IJ. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, [a]ny error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board s application of the correct legal standard. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the BIA acted well within its authority to review RiveraJimenez s social group claim de novo and did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera-Jimenez s motion to reconsider on this ground. Rivera-Jimenez also argues for the first time on appeal that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to review his claim of past persecution from the perspective of a child, as required by Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007). Although Rivera-Jimenez was a minor when he was allegedly persecuted, he failed to raise this argument before the BIA when he filed his motion to reconsider. Accordingly, Rivera-Jimenez has not exhausted this legal claim and 2 the court is without jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding there is no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented by the petitioner before the BIA). PETITION DENIED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.