DEISY PACHECO-DE VILLALTA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70880 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 20 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEISY M. PACHECO-DE VILLALTA; et al., No. 13-70880 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A095-754-410 A095-754-412 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2014** Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Deisy M. Pacheco-De Villalta and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** We deny petitioner s request for oral argument because the panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pacheco-De Villalta s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review. Pacheco-De Villalta does not raise any challenge to the BIA s dispositive finding that, before the IJ, her counsel conceded a lack of nexus and pursued only CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review Pacheco-De Villalta s contentions regarding CAT relief because she failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The dismissal of this petition for review is without prejudice to the filing of a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 13-70880

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.