Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raghbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73689.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
    
    Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
    Samuel Maina, Law Offices of S. Ouya Maina, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Anthony C. Payne, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before T.G. NELSON, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raghbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the order of an immigration judge (“U”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review.

We may review a final order of removal only if an alien has exhausted all available administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Although the IJ’s decision was based solely on an adverse credibility finding, Singh did not challenge that finding in either his brief or his notice of appeal to the BIA. Singh therefore failed to exhaust the issues he presents in his brief to this court, and we are precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the petition. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930-31 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.