Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 2018
Docket16-73730
StatusUnpublished

This text of Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions (Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABRAHAM SALGADO-SALGADO, No. 16-73730

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-381-221

v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Abraham Salgado-Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We

dismiss the petition for review.

* 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). We lack jurisdiction to consider Salgado-Salgado’s unexhausted sole

contention. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.

2004). Salgado-Salgado contends that the IJ’s failure to allow him to submit

updated hardship evidence prior to issuing the removal order constituted a due

process violation and a violation of 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(4)(B); however, Salgado-

Salgado failed to adequately raise this contention in his brief to the BIA. See Young

v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), abrogated in part on other

grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013) (“Presenting an argument

to the BIA requires reasoning sufficient to put the BIA on notice that it was called

on to decide the issue. A general challenge to the IJ’s decision is insufficient; the

alien must specify particular issues on appeal to the BIA.” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 16-73730

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Young v. Holder
697 F.3d 976 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Moncrieffe v. Holder
133 S. Ct. 1678 (Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-salgado-salgado-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.