Bernardo Salado-Alva v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 405 F. App'x 229 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO SALADO-ALVA, Bernie No. 08-74479
Salado,
Agency No. A024-221-509
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 2, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.**
Bernardo Salado-Alva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
immigration judge's removal order. We deny the petition for review in part and
dismiss in part.
A petitioner’s failure to present a claim in administrative proceedings will
bar the Court (for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) from hearing the claim.
Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1065–66 (9th Cir. 2010). In order to satisfy the
exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have articulated the claim merely with
enough specificity to “put the BIA on notice” so that it had “an opportunity to pass
on the issue.” Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
In his brief before the BIA, the petitioner did not challenge the factual
predicate to the use of his conviction in determining that he had been convicted of
an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Because the
challenge to the fact of his conviction was not presented with enough specificity to
put the BIA on notice that contention was at issue, we must dismiss the petition for
review for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Petitioner’s remaining contention is foreclosed by United States v. Medina-
Villa, 567 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
-2-