Asencio

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Asencio petitions for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) on December 14, 2004. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny the petition.

Asencio first argues that his Notice to Appear was defective because it did not contain a legible signature. This argument is foreclosed by Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2007) (rejecting identical argument on the ground that no “statute or regulation requires the inclusion of the name and title of the issuing officer”).

*507 Second, Asencio argues that the immigration judge (IJ) was precluded from considering his birth certificate to prove alienage, because he submitted it as an attachment to his asylum application in 1994, and the regulations in effect, at the time, provided that “[a]n application under this section ... shall not be held to constitute a concession of alienage or deportability.” 8 C.F.R. § 242.17 (e) (1994). Asencio never raised this argument to the Board, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it on appeal. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir.2004). In any event, the regulations in place in 1994 did…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent concerning the authenticity of the birth certificate. The IJ’s statements referring to the “original” are ambiguous at best, because it appears from context that she was contrasting the “original in Spanish” with the “translation in English.” Petitioner objected to the BIA that the birth certificate was not properly authenticated, but the BIA failed to address the issue in any way. I therefore would grant the petition in part and remand to the BIA to consider, in the first instance, whether the birth certificate was properly authenticated in accordance with then-governing law. INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). I otherwise concur in the majority disposition.