Maria Ester Mendez; Belica Marisol Garcia-Mendez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA ESTER MENDEZ; BELICA
MARISOL GARCIA-MENDEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72863
Agency Nos. A072-399-831
A077-858-235
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Maria Ester Mendez and Belica Marisol Garcia-Mendez, mother and
daughter and natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from an immigration
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RB/Research 06-72863 2
judge’s decision denying their applications for relief under the Nicaraguan and
Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), cancellation of removal, and asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction, under statute, to review the agency’s determination that
Mendez was not eligible for NACARA relief because she failed to establish that
she timely registered for ABC benefits, and Mendez does not raise a legal or
constitutional question that invokes our jurisdiction. See Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(i)-(ii), Pub.L.
No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), as amended by Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act of 1997 § 203(a)(1), Pub.L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160
(1997) (providing that “[a] determination by the Attorney General as to whether an
alien satisfies the requirements of this clause ... is final and shall not be subject to
review by any court”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(D) (restoring jurisdiction over
questions of law and constitutional questions).
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA neither abused its discretion in
denying their unsupported motion to file a late brief, nor inadequately explained its

-- 2 of 3 --

RB/Research 06-72863 3
reason for doing so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (BIA has discretion to extend
time period for filing of briefs).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the agency’s denial of their applications for cancellation of
removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and 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).
Petitioners’ due process contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --