ROBERTO GARCIA CEJA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 15-73795 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO GARCIA CEJA, AKA Robert Ceja Garcia, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73795 Agency No. A091-699-733 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Roberto Garcia Ceja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and a waiver under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Our jurisdiction is governed by * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that Garcia Ceja’s admission as a legal permanent resident was not lawful, where he had been previously convicted of felony possession of cocaine. See id. (“Although an alien may have been admitted for permanent residence, he has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if he was precluded from obtaining permanent resident status due to an inability to meet the prerequisites.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(1)(C)(ii) (requiring the applicant to establish that he has not been convicted of any felony). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding Garcia Ceja ineligible for cancellation of removal and a waiver of inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a), 1182(c) (repealed 1996) (both requiring “lawful admission” as a prerequisite to relief). We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia Ceja’s unexhausted contention that the government waived the admissibility requirement in his case. 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 15-73795
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.
