Sandoval-Alvarado

Sandoval-Alvarado v. Ashcroft

Good Law
109 F. App'x 171
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 2004No. 03-70601California541 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*172 MEMORANDUM *

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of petitioners’ claims for asylum and withholding of removal. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions.” Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000).

Petitioners’ primary contention is that the IJ deprived them of due process by prejudging the case and preventing them from fully developing the record. Petitioners, however, did not raise a due process argument before the BIA. Because the due process claims made here are in the nature of procedural errors that the BIA could have remedied, they are subject to the exhaustion requirement. Because these claims were not exhausted before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review them. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

On this record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, see Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific, cogent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.