Abelardo Valle-Cortez v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Abelardo Valle-Cortez (“Cortez”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed to Mexico. We dismiss in part and deny in part Cortez’s petition.

1. Cortez argues that the BIA incorrectly found him removable under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(B)(i). We lack jurisdiction to review this claim because Cortez failed to exhaust this argument with the BIA. We may only review a final order of removal if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien.... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1). “This requirement ‘generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below.’” Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (quoting Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004)). Although “we do not employ the exhaustion doctrine in a formalistic manner,” a petitioner must raise an issue to the BIA with enough particularity to “ ‘put the BIA on notice’ as to the specific issues” that are in dispute, “so that the BIA…