Ingrid Marleni Ocampo-Barrera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INGRID MARLENI OCAMPO-BARRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71135
Agency No. A208-740-374
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ingrid Marleni Ocampo-Barrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
cancellation 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 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 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71135
review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Because Ocampo-Barrera does not raise any challenge to the agency’s good
moral character determination or denial of cancellation of removal, we do not
address these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Ocampo-Barrera’s claim the agency violated her right to due process by
failing to advise her of the availability of voluntary departure fails because she has
not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a
violation of rights and prejudice.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ocampo-Barrera’s contentions that she
suffered persecution and established eligibility for protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”) because she failed to raise the issues before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --