eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-06

Dale Bennett v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE ANTHONY BENNETT, AKA Dale                  No.    18-71346
Anthony Stephens,
Agency No. A208-837-037
Petitioner,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Dale Anthony Bennett, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. 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 whether Bennett’s waiver of the right to
appeal was considered and intelligent where he failed to raise the issue before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally
requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA); cf. Biwot v. Gonzales,
    403 F.3d 1094
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (where a waiver of appeal was not considered and
intelligent, the waiver does not strip the court of jurisdiction).
To the extent Bennett challenges the BIA’s May 16, 2018, order dismissing
his appeal from the IJ’s order denying his motion to reopen, that challenge is not
properly before us. See Dela Cruz v. Mukasey,
    532 F.3d 946
    , 948 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“Congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final
orders.” (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citation omitted)); Lin v.
Gonzales,
    473 F.3d 979
    , 981 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that denials of subsequent
motions to reopen require separate petitions for review).
The Clerk will mail an additional copy of this memorandum disposition to
Bennett at:
17 Nurse Seay Street
Belize City
Belize, C.A.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2                                  18-71346