Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose De Jesus CARMONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71752.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Jose De Jesus Carmona, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose De Jesus Carmona, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Carmo-na’s contentions regarding his fear of returning to Mexico, his eligibility for voluntary departure and U-Visa relief, his lack of opportunity to gather evidence, and his bond hearing because he did not exhaust these issues before the BIA. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir.2010) (broad statements in notice of appeal and brief were insufficient to put the BIA on notice of petitioner’s claim). Further, we decline to consider Carmona’s contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, T-Visa relief, the adequacy of the BIA’s decision, and his detention conditions because he raised them for the first time in his reply brief. See Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1066 n. 5 (9th Cir.2003) (we decline to consider new issues raised for the first time in a reply brief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.