Raymond Asare v. Eric Holder, Jr.

474 F. App'x 715
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 2012
Docket11-71083
StatusUnpublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 715 (Raymond Asare v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Raymond Asare v. Eric Holder, Jr., 474 F. App'x 715 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond K. Asare, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez de Alcantar v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

*716 The BIA correctly determined that Asare is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (ii) on the basis of his two convictions for petty theft with prior convictions of theft, in violation of California Penal Code § 666. See United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136-137 (9th Cir.1999) (petty theft is a crime involving moral turpitude).

The BIA correctly determined that Asare is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was served with a Notice to Appear in March 2010, less than seven years after his admission to the United States in July 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2) (applicant must establish seven years of continuous residence after admission), (d)(1)(A) (period of residence ends with service of Notice to Appear).

To the extent Asare challenges the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum, we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 654 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (issues not argued in a petitioner’s BIA appeal brief are unexhausted, and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider them).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Vasquez De Alcantar v. Holder
645 F.3d 1097 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.
654 F.3d 1194 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Cecilio Esparza-Ponce
193 F.3d 1133 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 F. App'x 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-asare-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.