SALVADOR ZARATE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72434 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 3 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR ZARATE, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72434 Agency No. A070-814-780 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Salvador Zarate, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Zarate’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA). The IJ denied Zarate’s claims for relief based on an adverse credibility determination and independently denied his claims on the merits. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial only on the merits. Although Zarate challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and the BIA’s failure to address the IJ’s adverse credibility findings, he does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s dispositive denial on the merits. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not argued in opening brief deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Zarate’s asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 14-72434
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.
