Xiao Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Xiao Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

540 F. App'x 612

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 2013

Docket10-72849

StatusUnpublished

This text of 540 F. App'x 612 (Xiao Chen 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

Xiao Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., 540 F. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Xiao Min Chen, a Chinese national and citizen, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), In re X-M-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 322 (B.I.A.2010), which was issued following a remand from this Court. See Chen v. Mukasey (“Chen I”), 527 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.2008). In this appeal, Petitioner argues, for the first time, that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) failed to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4) at a hearing in Petitioner’s removal proceeding. She contends that although the IJ warned her of the consequence of knowingly filing a frivolous asylum application, the IJ failed to advise her of the privilege of being represented by counsel.

This issue was not raised before the IJ or the BIA, either before or after remand from this Court, and thus, we are deprived of jurisdiction to consider the argument. A failure to exhaust deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider an issue. Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2013).

In light of this Court’s recent decision in Kulakchyan v. Holder, No. 09-71185, 730 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2013), the Court rejects Petitioner’s remaining argument that In re X-M-C- is an unreasonable interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).

PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Xiao Min Chen, a Chinese national and citizen, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), In re X-M-C-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 322 (B.I.A.2010), which was issued following a remand from this Court. See Chen v. Mukasey (“Chen I”), 527 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.2008). In this appeal, Petitioner argues, for the first time, that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) failed to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4) at a hearing in Petitioner’s removal proceeding. She contends that although the IJ warned her of the consequence of knowingly filing a frivolous asylum application, the IJ failed to advise her of the privilege of being represented by counsel.

This issue was not raised before the IJ or the BIA, either before or after remand from this Court, and thus, we are deprived of jurisdiction to consider the argument. A failure to exhaust deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider an issue. Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2013).

In light of this Court’s recent decision in Kulakchyan v. Holder, No. 09-71185, 730 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.2013), the Court rejects Petitioner’s remaining argument that In re X-M-C- is an unreasonable interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6).

PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 F. App'x 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xiao-chen-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack