Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0758-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Alfredo Sasvin REYNOSO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
    No. 02-72596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 31, 2004.
    
    Decided June 24, 2004.
    Patricia Vargas, Esq., Vargas & Associates, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, BEEZER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alfredo Sasvin-Reynoso petitions for review of a final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) determination that Sasvin-Reynoso was not eligible for suspension of deportation.

We lack jurisdiction to review issues not raised before the BIA. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001). We hold that Sasvin-Reynoso failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his challenge to the IJ’s determination that assault is a crime involving moral turpitude because he failed to raise this issue on appeal to the BIA. We lack jurisdiction to review this issue and dismiss the petition for review with respect to Sasvin-Reynoso’s eligibility for suspension.

Sasvin-Reynoso also argues that the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion violated due process. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part AND DENIED in part. 
      
       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.