Mohammad Arshad Hussain v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD ARSHAD HUSSAIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73992
Agency No. A077-821-132
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2014 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY, District
Judge.***
Mohammad Arshad Hussain petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration
FILED
JUL 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
*** The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

judge’s (“IJ”) decision providing a period of voluntary departure and written
voluntary departure advisals on remand from Hussain’s prior appeal to the BIA.
Hussain contends that he was deprived of due process of law when the IJ did not
advise him on remand of his right to counsel or his right to submit additional
evidence, and when the BIA did not issue a briefing schedule for his second
appeal. We dismiss in part and deny in part Hussain’s petition for review.
1. Hussain did not “‘put the BIA on notice’” of his due process claim
based on the IJ’s failure to advise him of his right to counsel on remand. Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Moreno-Morante v.
Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1173 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007)). Hussain, therefore, did not
exhaust this claim, and “we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to address it.” Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. Hussain’s remaining due process claims show neither that Hussain
was “‘prevented from reasonably presenting his case,’” nor “‘that the outcome of
the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation[s].’” Gutierrez v.
Holder, 730 F.3d 900, 903 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, Hussain cannot prevail on
these claims. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2

-- 2 of 2 --