Heidy Johana Martinez- Santiago; Mario Roberto Martinez-Santiago v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEIDY JOHANA MARTINEZ-
SANTIAGO; MARIO ROBERTO
MARTINEZ-SANTIAGO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72612
Agency Nos. A088-018-120
A095-931-536
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Heidy Johana Martinez-Santiago and Mario Roberto Martinez-Santiago,
natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
* 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
JUN 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72612
decision denying their applications for 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 to consider the merits of petitioners’ claims as to their
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because they failed
to raise them before the BIA. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.
2010) (“[Petitioner’s] failure to assert [a] claim before the BIA deprived it of the
opportunity to address the issue and divests us of jurisdiction to review it.”).
In petitioners’ opening brief they do not challenge, and therefore waive, the
BIA’s determination that they failed to establish their former counsel provided
ineffective assistance. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --