JEAN FOURT V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-72791 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEAN FRANCOIS FOURT, AKA Keith Johnson, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72791 Agency No. A071-951-514 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Jean Francois Fourt, a native and citizen of France, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that the IJ had jurisdiction to enter an in absentia order regardless of whether Fourt was in the United States at the time. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). We reject as unsupported Fourt’s contentions that the agency misapplied Matter of Sanchez-Herbert, 26 I. & N. Dec. 43 (BIA 2012), or that 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(E) excludes aliens in non-contiguous foreign territories from in absentia proceedings. We lack jurisdiction to consider Fourt’s unexhausted contention that the IJ erroneously relied on incorrect statutory provisions in her decision. 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). Fourt has waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his motion to reopen was untimely, and in light of our disposition, we do not reach his remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-72791
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.
