Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
15-73474•JORGE ADRIAN PORTUGAL RUEDAS, AKA Jorge Portugal, AKA Jorge Adrian Portugal v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
15-73474Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit15.03.2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ADRIAN PORTUGAL RUEDAS,
AKA Jorge Portugal, AKA Jorge Adrian
Portugal,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73474
Agency No. A095-659-944
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 11, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Adrian Portugal Ruedas (“Portugal Ruedas”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of Portugal Ruedas’s
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2
applications for cancellation of removal and for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.
Portugal Ruedas argues that the IJ’s analysis of his eligibility for relief was
inadequate and deprived him of due process, and that the BIA erred in summarily
affirming the IJ’s decision. But Portugal Ruedas did not raise any specific
challenges to the IJ’s decision before the BIA. He filed a notice of appeal that
contained no argument or even any list of issues, and he filed no subsequent brief.
He has therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and we lack
jurisdiction to review his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 1252(d)(1)
bars us from reaching the merits of an unexhausted procedural due process claim).
PETITION DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.