Jose Saul Blandon-ramirez, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 122 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 122 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Aug. 25, 1997. **Sept. 3, 1997

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Before: SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges

MEMORANDUM* 

Jose Saul Blandon-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen and reconsider its decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we deny the petition.

Blandon-Ramirez contends that the BIA should reconsider its order because the BIA improperly adopted the IJ's use of administrative notice. Blandon-Ramirez, however, failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to this issue because he raises it for the first time in this petition, and thus, we lack jurisdiction to address it. See Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987).1 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Blandon-Ramirez's motion to reopen because he presented to the BIA only his original asylum application and supporting documents, and thus, failed to submit any new evidence to support his motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 105 (1988)); 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(c), 103.5(a) (2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

 1

Blandon-Ramirez also contends that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We cannot address this issue because this court dismissed as untimely his prior petition for review. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Blandon-Ramirez v. INS, No. 95-70260 (9th Cir. June 9, 1995) (order dismissing prior petition)

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.