JAQUELINE GARCIA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-72887 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAQUELINE ESTEFANY GARCIA, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-72887 Agency No. A088-724-763 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Jaqueline Estefany Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that even if Garcia established past persecution on account of a protected ground, her presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by the reasonable possibility of internal relocation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii). Thus, Garcia’s asylum claim fails. Because Garcia failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia’s CAT claim because she did not raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-72887

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.