Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Abraham Salgado-Salgado v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-salgado-salgado-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.