Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammad Arshad HUSSAIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73992.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2014.
    
    Filed July 24, 2014.
    Mark Barrett Nerheim, Law Offices of Mark B. Nerheim, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, 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: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammad Arshad Hussain petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision providing a period of voluntary departure and written voluntary departure advisals on remand from Hussain’s prior appeal to the BIA. Hussain contends that he was deprived of due process of law when the IJ.did not advise him on remand of his right to counsel or his right to submit additional evidence, and when the BIA did not issue a briefing schedule for his second appeal. We dismiss in part and ' deny in part Hussain’s petition for review.

1. Hussain did not “‘put the BIA on notice’ ” of his due process claim based on the IJ’s failure to advise him of his right to counsel on remand. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Moreno-Morante v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 1172, 1173 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007)). Hussain, therefore, did not exhaust this claim, and “we lack subject-matter jurisdiction to address it.” Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

2. Hussain’s remaining due process claims show neither that Hussain was “ ‘prevented from reasonably presenting his case,’ ” nor “ ‘that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation[s].’ ” Gutierrez v. Holder, 730 F.3d 900, 903 (9th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (quoting Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir.2010)). Accordingly, Hussain cannot prevail on these claims. Id.

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.