RUBIT ZUNIGA AGUIRRE V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72789 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBIT ANABELI ZUNIGA AGUIRRE, Petitioner, No. 11-72789 Agency No. A070-920-604 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Rubit Anabeli Zuniga Aguirre, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying her application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central * 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). American Relief Act ( NACARA ). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency s factual determination that Zuniga Aguirre is not eligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (the court is precluded from reviewing the agency s factual determination that an immigrant is ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Zuniga Aguirre s contention that under Chaly-Garcia v. United States, 508 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2007), the asylum application she allegedly filed in May 1990 should qualify her for benefits under the ABC settlement agreement, because she failed to raise this contention before the agency, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678. Zuniga Aguirre s claim that she was not given an opportunity to testify regarding her eligibility for NACARA relief is unavailing where she was given such an opportunity during her removal proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 2 11-72789 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 11-72789
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.
