ABRAHAM SALGADO-SALGADO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-73730 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABRAHAM SALGADO-SALGADO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73730 Agency No. A200-381-221 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Abraham Salgado-Salgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. 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 consider Salgado-Salgado’s unexhausted sole contention. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Salgado-Salgado contends that the IJ’s failure to allow him to submit updated hardship evidence prior to issuing the removal order constituted a due process violation and a violation of 8 U.S.C § 1229a(b)(4)(B); however, SalgadoSalgado failed to adequately raise this contention in his brief to the BIA. See Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), abrogated in part on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 1678 (2013) (“Presenting an argument to the BIA requires reasoning sufficient to put the BIA on notice that it was called on to decide the issue. A general challenge to the IJ’s decision is insufficient; the alien must specify particular issues on appeal to the BIA.” (citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 16-73730

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.