Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Deo Sharma v. Holder
Citation: 320 F. App'x 746Docket: No. 06-75727
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 31, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Lead petitioner Suneel Deo Sharma and his family, citizens of Fiji, filed a pro se petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order denying their motion to reconsider. The jurisdiction for this review is established by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, which allows for the examination of the BIA's discretionary decisions. The court found that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying the motion as untimely, as it was submitted more than 30 days after the BIA's May 31, 2006 order, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Additionally, the court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioners' remaining claims due to their failure to exhaust those issues, as required by Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004), which emphasizes that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional. The petition was deemed timely only concerning the BIA's December 8, 2006 order and did not pertain to earlier decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). The court ultimately denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. The disposition of this case is not suitable for publication and holds no precedential value except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.