Salazar-Osti

Salazar-Osti v. Gonzales

Good Law
137 F. App'x 16
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 2005Nos. 04-71376California324 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Salazar-Osti and Betha Vazquez-Arias, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance, without opinion, of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that petitioners had failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence and had also failed to establish that their removal would cause the requisite level of hardship to their U.S. citizen son. Respondent contends that the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1), because they failed to raise any issues before the BIA.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contentions that the IJ erred by finding that they had neither established exceptional hardship nor the requisite ten-years of continuous presence because petitioners failed to raise those issues before the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of…

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.