NELSON JR. MANANTAN BUEMIO, AKA Nelson M. Buemio v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON JR. MANANTAN BUEMIO,
AKA Nelson M. Buemio,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72889
Agency No. A056-519-167
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Jr. Manantan Buemio, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of
* 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
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72889
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 409 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Buemio is removable where
Buemio failed to demonstrate any egregious circumstance that would justify
relieving him from his attorney’s admissions at the pleadings stage. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 831-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing egregious
circumstances that, if present, justify relieving an alien of his attorney’s
admissions); Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2007)
(alien’s admissions at pleadings stage constitute clear, convincing, and unequivocal
evidence of removability).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012).
To the extent Buemio contends the IJ was biased or denied him a full and
fair hearing, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings
before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --