FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUZMAN PINEDA, No. 12-71491
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-179-028
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guzman Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and de novo questions of law, Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th
Cir. 2013). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Guzman Pineda does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
application for asylum was untimely. Thus, we deny Guzman Pineda’s petition for
review with respect to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Guzman Pineda failed
to articulate a particular social group on account of which he fears persecution.
Thus, Guzman Pineda’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guzman Pineda’s CAT claim because he
did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief in his appeal to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Guzman Pineda has not established a due process violation based on his
contentions that his immigration counsel provided ineffective assistance, see
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring compliance
with Matter of Lozada requirements where ineffectiveness of counsel is not plain
on the face of the record), or that other similarly situated individuals received some
2 12-71491
form of relief, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
The validity of Guzman Pineda’s domestic violence conviction is not
properly before us, see Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“[a] petitioner may not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a
petition for review of a BIA decision”), nor is his challenge to his bond
proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v.
Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to grant Guzman Pineda any other form of relief
he has requested. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (describing the court’s jurisdiction with
respect to orders of removal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71491