RIGOBERTO SANTAOLALLA- DEANDA, AKA Rigoberto Santaolalladeand v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO SANTAOLALLA-
DEANDA, AKA Rigoberto
Santaolalladeand
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71988
Agency No. A205-710-484
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Santaolalla-Deanda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
* 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).
FILED
MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71988
asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal, and denying
voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo
questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020).
We deny in part, grant in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review, and we
remand.
Santaolalla-Deanda does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he
waived his challenge to the IJ’s asylum time bar determination. 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). We do not address the
merits of his asylum claim because the BIA did not reach them. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Santaolalla-Deanda’s asylum claim.
As to withholding of removal, the agency did not have the benefit of
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the “one
central reason” standard applies to asylum but not withholding of removal). Thus,
we grant the petition for review and remand Santaolalla-Deanda’s withholding of
removal claim to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71988
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam).
As to cancellation of removal, the agency did not have the benefit of Pereira
v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2114 (2018) (holding that a notice to appear must
include the time and place of removal proceedings to trigger the stop-time rule
ending the accrual of continuous presence). Thus, we grant the petition for review
and remand Santaolalla-Deanda’s cancellation of removal claim to the agency for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at
16-17.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013)
(the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial of voluntary departure is
limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).
To the extent that Santaolalla-Deanda raises a due process claim based on
the IJ’s denial of a continuance to present additional witness testimony, that claim
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Santaolalla-Deanda’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The government will bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
DISMISSED in part; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --