Uriel Ramirez-Sosa v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-72739 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT URIEL RAFAEL RAMIREZ-SOSA, Petitioner, No. 08-72739 Agency No. A029-555-568 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Uriel Rafael Ramirez-Sosa, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Ramirez-Sosa contends the IJ violated due process by not providing him with a copy of the 1991 order granting him suspension of deportation. Contrary to Ramirez-Sosa s contention, the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Ramirez-Sosa failed to demonstrate that correcting the IJ s alleged error may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Sosa s challenge to his charge of removability because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-72739

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.