HENRIQUEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-22No. No. 20-72087

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition was denied because Henriquez failed to exhaust his claims before the BIA, depriving the court of jurisdiction to consider them.

Henriquez petitioned for review of an immigration judge's decision, but failed to raise certain arguments before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a petitioner must exhaust all issues at the administrative level before appealing to the court. Because Henriquez did not present arguments about his waiver of appeal or his cancellation of removal claim to the BIA, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims on appeal. The court also found that Henriquez's challenge to the denial of cancellation of removal was similarly unexhausted, as he did not raise arguments about the hardship requirement or his two DUI convictions before the BIA.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether issue exhaustion before the BIA is a jurisdictional requirement
Whether petitioner waived his right to appeal before the immigration judge
Whether petitioner satisfied requirements for cancellation of removal

Procedural posture

Henriquez appealed an immigration judge's decision to the BIA and subsequently petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

“Our precedent ․ has squarely held that issue exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement.” Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014). When “[a] petitioner[ ] fail[s] to raise an issue before the BIA [it] generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue.” Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Here, neither Henriquezs Notice of Appeal from the IJs decision, nor the brief submitted to the BIA, provide any argumentation regarding Henriquezs waiver of appeal before the IJ. Because Henriquez did not raise the issue of his waiver of appeal, or any arguments related to that issue before the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to consider those claims.

DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. Henriquezs challenge to the IJs denial of his application for cancellation of removal is similarly unexhausted. The IJ denied cancellation of removal because Henriquez did not demonstrate the requisite hardship and because his “two DUI convictions within the last 10 years” triggered the presumption that Henriquez could not show good moral character, which the record did not rebut. Henriquez did not raise either hardship or his DUI convictions in his Notice of Appeal or his brief before the BIA. We thus also do not have jurisdiction to consider Henriquezs unexhausted claim for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

. Henriquezs motion for stay of removal (ECF No.1) and supplemental motion for stay removal (ECF No. 10) are consequentially denied as moot.