JOSE ELISEO ALFARO HENRIQUEZ, AKA Jose Alfaro Henriquez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ELISEO ALFARO HENRIQUEZ,
AKA Jose Alfaro Henriquez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72087
Agency No. A094-319-650
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 17, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
“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
* 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
JUN 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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
Henriquez’s Notice of Appeal from the IJ’s decision, nor the brief submitted to the
BIA, provide any argumentation regarding Henriquez’s 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.1
DENIED.2
1 Henriquez’s challenge to the IJ’s 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 Henriquez’s
unexhausted claim for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
2 Henriquez’s motion for stay of removal (ECF No.1) and supplemental motion for
stay removal (ECF No. 10) are consequentially denied as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --