Ramos-Pablo

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec.

872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), we review both decisions. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We review factual findings for substantial evidence.

Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2021).

1. Ramos-Pablo argues that the defective Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which

lacked the date and time of his initial hearing, deprived the immigration court of

jurisdiction over his proceedings. Ramos-Pablo failed to exhaust this claim because

he raised it for the first time only vaguely in his Notice of Appeal and did not argue

it in his brief to the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.

2009) (en banc). See also Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2023) (stating that, although “[a] noncitizen need not raise a ‘precise

argument’ before the BIA in order to exhaust it,” the noncitizen must at least

“give[] the BIA ‘an adequate opportunity to pass on the issue’” (quoting Diaz-

Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 2018))).

2. Substantial evidence…