Aragon Mejia v. Holder , 431 F. App'x 561 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN ARAGON-MEJIA, No. 07-74517
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-192-831
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Aragon-Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Aragon-Mejia claims he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal
based on his anti-gang political opinion. We lack jurisdiction to consider this
contention because he did not exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over
legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below); Zara v. Ashcroft,
383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (the exhaustion requirement applies to
“streamlined” cases). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition as to his asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Aragon’s due process contention regarding the BIA’s streamlined decision is
foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003)
(BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate due process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 07-74517