Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Ikahihifo AFUHAAMANGO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71828.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 27, 2006.
    
    Filed Sept. 13, 2006.
    Parmjeet Kaur Randhawa, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, William C. Minick, Esq., Melissa Neiman Kelting, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: T.G. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Ikahihifo Afuhaamango petitions for review from the Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denials of his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

Afuhaamango did not establish exceptional circumstances under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(l) or under case law interpreting that provision. We lack jurisdiction over his claim that the government never established removability because he failed to raise that claim before the BIA or the IJ.

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.
     
      
      . See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2002) (finding exceptional circumstances where the petitioner was eligible for adjustment of status as the spouse of an American citizen and was the beneficiary of an already-approved immediate relative petition).
     
      
      . See Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a failure to raise an issue before the BIA deprives the court of jurisdiction).