Mayra Garcia, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-70729 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAYRA CAROLINA GARCIA, aka Sabrina Michelle Garcia; et al., No. 09-70729 Agency Nos. A098-953-391 A098-953-392 A098-953-393 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Mayra Carolina Garcia and her daughters, Vivian Marcela Rivera Garcia and Katherine Vanessa Rodriguez Garcia, natives and citizens of El Salvador , petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s (IJ) decision denying their application for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Petitioners contend the Board denied them due process by failing to address a country report supporting their claim that women and children are mistreated in El Salvador. There is no clear evidence to rebut the presumption that the Board considered the evidence in the record. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007). Regardless, the Board denied relief based on a failure to establish a nexus to a protected ground, and the country report is not relevant to that determination. We decline to address petitioner s unexhausted contention that the IJ did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 by failing to send a copy of the asylum application to the Department of State for review. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider a claim that Board did not have first opportunity to consider). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-70729

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.