Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a petitioner from the Philippines seeks judicial review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge's order for his removal. The jurisdiction of the court is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court partially denies and partially dismisses the petition for review. The court rejects the petitioner’s argument concerning a purportedly defective criminal conviction, citing its inability to reassess the circumstances of the conviction following the precedent set in Ortega de Robles v. INS. Additionally, the court declares it lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims of denial of the right to counsel and eligibility for relief from removal, as these issues were not exhausted before the BIA, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite per Barron v. Ashcroft. Ultimately, the petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part, with the memorandum highlighting that the decision is non-precedential, pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exhaustion of Administrative Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims not raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) are considered unexhausted, and the court lacks jurisdiction to review them.
Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction over Baria’s claims of denial of the right to counsel and eligibility for relief from removal, as these issues were not raised before the BIA, emphasizing that exhaustion of claims is mandatory and jurisdictional per Barron v. Ashcroft.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's jurisdiction is confined to issues properly raised before it, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision in this matter is not intended for publication and cannot be cited as precedent, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The memorandum concludes that the petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part, and notes that this disposition is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reassessment of Criminal Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court does not have the authority to reassess the circumstances surrounding a criminal conviction.
Reasoning: Baria’s argument regarding a defective criminal conviction is rejected, as the court cannot reassess the circumstances surrounding the conviction, referencing Ortega de Robles v. INS.