MARVIN SEGOVIA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70031 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN MAURICIO SEGOVIA, Petitioner, No. 13-70031 Agency No. A095-002-413 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Marvin Mauricio Segovia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Latter-Singh * 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). v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA correctly determined that Segovia is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under California Penal Code § 487(d)(1) is for a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(1)(C); United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that California theft constitutes a crime of moral turpitude). We lack jurisdiction to consider Segovia s unexhausted contentions regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the IJ s alleged failure to grant a continuance, and his eligibility for asylum. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ( We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien s administrative proceedings before the BIA. ) PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-70031

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.