Solano-Cruz v. Ashcroft
This text of 52 F. App'x 374 (Solano-Cruz v. Ashcroft) 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
MEMORANDUM
Solano-Cruz appeals a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his petition, which sought cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents under § 240(A)(b)(l) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l) (2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we affirm.
Solano-Cruz seeks review of the Immigration Judge’s determination that he failed to show ten years of continuous presence in the United States for the first time in this appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A). Because he did not raise this issue in his appeal before the BIA, Solano-Cruz has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him, and we lack jurisdiction to hear this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2002); INA § 242(d)(1); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2001); Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solano-cruz-v-ashcroft-ca9-2002.