SILVIA CLAROS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-70376 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVIA CLAROS, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70376 Agency No. A087-308-623 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Silvia Claros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review Claros’ unexhausted contention that she has carried her burden of showing eligibility for adjustment of status because the record of conviction is inconclusive due to the definition of “cocaine base” in California allegedly including substances that are not controlled under the Controlled Substances Act. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). Accordingly, to the extent Claros requests we take judicial notice of the related documents attached to her opening brief, we deny her request. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). Because the court issued its decision in Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2015), Claros’ request to hold this case in abeyance pending that decision is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 15-70376

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.