Manuel Mata Ramirez, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73649 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL MATA RAMIREZ and YADIRA MATA PEREZ, No. 08-73649 Agency Nos. A095-302-505 A095-302-506 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Manuel Mata Ramirez and Yadira Mata Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). The BIA did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner s appeal where petitioners did not meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reason underlying the appeal. See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice of appeal satisfies specificity requirement if stated reasons show what aspects of IJ s decision were allegedly incorrect and why). Petitioners remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 08-73649

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.