Narrative Opinion Summary
Solano-Cruz appeals a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his petition for cancellation of removal under section 240(A)(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The jurisdiction for this appeal is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The appeal centers on the Immigration Judge's finding that Solano-Cruz failed to demonstrate ten years of continuous presence in the United States, a requirement he raised for the first time in this appeal. As this issue was not presented in his prior appeal to the BIA, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies, leading to a lack of jurisdiction for this claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The court affirms the BIA's order. The decision is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Continuous Presence Requirement under INA Section 240(A)(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Solano-Cruz's appeal was dismissed because he failed to demonstrate the required ten years of continuous presence in the United States, a key eligibility criterion for cancellation of removal.
Reasoning: The appeal centers on the Immigration Judge's finding that Solano-Cruz failed to demonstrate ten years of continuous presence in the United States, a requirement he raised for the first time in this appeal.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Solano-Cruz failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies by not raising the issue of continuous presence in his initial appeal to the BIA, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction for this claim.
Reasoning: As this issue was not presented in his prior appeal to the BIA, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies, leading to a lack of jurisdiction for this claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The jurisdiction for the appeal was established under the specific statutory provision that governs judicial review of immigration decisions.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction for this appeal is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
Non-Publication and Non-Citation under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is designated as non-precedential and cannot be cited in the Ninth Circuit.
Reasoning: The decision is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.