Cuichao Huang v. Jefferson Sessions , 695 F. App'x 232 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUICHAO HUANG, No. 14-72029
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-752-474
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cuichao Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
motion to reopen. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion to
reopen, where the IJ instructed Huang orally and in writing of the deadline for
being fingerprinted and of the consequences of failure to meet the deadline, Huang
failed to present good cause for his failure to comply, and he did not provide
sufficient evidence to support his claim that he made an appointment to have his
fingerprints taken but was rejected. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(3), 1003.47(c)
(“Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the requirements to
provide biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the immigration judge’s order,
constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration judge may enter an
appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that
such failure was the result of good cause.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Huang’s unexhausted contention regarding
the lack of a transcript of immigration court proceedings in the administrative
record. 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).
2 14-72029
To the extent Huang asks this court to exercise sua sponte authority to
reopen proceedings, that authority rests with the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
We do not reach Huang’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for
relief. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (review is
limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72029