ALEKSANDR KAPTYUG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72857 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ALEKSANDR PETROVICH KAPTYUG, a.k.a. Aliaksandr Peter Kaptsiuh, No. 10-72857 Agency No. A076-056-978 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Aleksandr Petrovich Kaptyug, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order summarily affirming an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his applications for * 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). withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ) and pretermitting his applications for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), and review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s conclusion that Kaptyug did not qualify for withholding of removal because he failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on account of his religion. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). The IJ correctly determined that Kaptyug was ineligible to adjust his status. Kaptyug had previously adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident ( LPR ) and therefore cannot re-adjust his status to that of an LPR under 8 U.S.C. § 1159, to avoid removal. See Robleto-Pastora, 591 F.3d at 1060. We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaptyug s asylum, cancellation of removal and CAT claims because he failed to exhaust his challenges to the IJ s conclusion that he is ineligible for these forms of relief due to his prior criminal convictions. 2 10-72857 See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 10-72857
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.
