Case ID: f-appx_123/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kulwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72676.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 18, 2005.
    Hardeep S. Rai, George T. Heridis, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Donald A. Couvillon, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before ALARCÓN, SILER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review because Singh failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Singh’s wife filed an 1-730 derivative asylee petition for him. Singh then moved the BIA to reopen so that the immigration judge could consider his eligibility for derivative asylee status. Now, in this petition for review, Singh argues for the first time that the BIA should have remanded his case to the immigration judge for administrative closure or termination. This was not the relief requested of the BIA in the motion to reopen. Because Singh failed to seek this relief from the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004); Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir.2003).

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.