BERNARTITA MOSES V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-72051 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 13 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNARTITA MOSES, AKA Bernartita Mariano Moses, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72051 Agency No. A206-352-760 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Bernartita Moses, a native and citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision ordering her removed. Our * 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). jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Moses has not raised, and therefore she has waived, any challenge to the agency’s determination that her conviction under Hawaii Penal Code §§ 708830(2), 708-831(1)(b) is a crime involving moral turpitude. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Moses also waived any challenge to removability, because she did not raise this contention in her opening brief. See id. We lack jurisdiction to consider Moses’s unexhausted challenges to the validity of her criminal conviction. 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-72051

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.