Case ID: f-appx_620/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Namsraidorj MIJID, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70208.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2015.
    Zulu Ali, Zulu Abdullah Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    Channah Norman, 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: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Namsraidorj Mijid, a native and citizen' of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including questions pertaining to our own jurisdiction. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Mijid’s contentions regarding the IJ’s denial of his right to counsel and denial of his right to a full and fair hearing because he failed to raise these due process claims to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). We reject Mijid’s contention that his arguments did not need to be exhausted. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1136 (9th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (“[Cjhallenges to procedural errors correctable by the administrative tribunal must be exhausted before we undertake review”) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

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