JERRY KANSOU V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-71907 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JERRY KANSOU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71907 Agency No. A215-927-125 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2021** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: O’SCANNLAIN, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jerry Kansou asks this Court to grant his petition for review and to reverse his order of removal. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We do not have jurisdiction to review this petition, and we therefore deny it. * 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). This Court only has jurisdiction to review a petition to the extent the claims presented were exhausted in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Kansou did not exhaust his claim in front of the BIA. Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). Kansou is now arguing that his Hawaii convictions for possessing methamphetamine are not related to a controlled substance within the meaning of federal law. He did not raise this claim in front of the BIA. Instead, he only argued (1) that his 2009 departure from the United States did not interrupt his physical presence for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal and (2) that he is in the process of challenging his Hawaii convictions through a state post-conviction process. Neither did the BIA choose to consider the now-raised claim on its own, thereby exhausting it for Kansou. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, the BIA did not adopt the Immigration Judge’s decision, but merely affirmed it. Id. at 1040–41. When the BIA adopts a decision, it states so explicitly, and it did not do so here. We, thus, do not decide if Kansou properly raised his claim in front of the Immigration Judge. Since we do not have jurisdiction, we do not reach the issue of whether 2 Kansou’s Hawaii convictions are related to a controlled substance. PETITION DISMISSED. 3
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.
