NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
PAOLA JIMENEZ CASTILLA; LAURA No. 10-71612
LILIA JIMENEZ CASTILLA,
Agency Nos. A076-356-377
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A076-356-378
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Paola Jimenez Castilla and Laura Lilia Jimenez Castilla, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
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).
applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review due process claims de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291
F.3d 594, 599-600 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Petitioners’ contention that the application of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’s (“IIRIRA”) permanent rules
to them is impermissibly retroactive is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles, 291 F.3d at
600-02 (IIRIRA’s elimination of suspension of deportation does not have an
impermissibly retroactive effect when applied to aliens who were placed in
removal proceedings after IIRIRA went into effect).
Petitioners’ sole contention before the BIA was that the application of
IIRIRA violates their right to equal protection; however, petitioners fail to raise,
and therefore have waived, any challenge to the BIA’s determination that it did not
have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they may benefit
from the imputed physical presence of their parents because they failed to raise the
issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
2 10-71612
See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Judge Berzon:
I would instruct, prior to issuing a decision on the merits, that the parties
confer with the Ninth Circuit Mediation Office regarding whether they wish to
engage in mediation with respect to petitioner Laura Lilia Jimenez Castilla.
3 10-71612