Opinion ID: 6216842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner’s Jurisdictional Argument Is

Text: Unexhausted. Petitioner argues, for the first time on appeal, that the agency lacked jurisdiction because his charging document failed to specify the time and date of his hearing, noting instead that those details were “[t]o be determined.” In support of his argument, Petitioner relies primarily on Pereira, in which the Supreme Court answered a “narrow question” not presented in this case: the effect of deficiencies in a Notice to Appear (NTA) on the stop-time rule. See Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2109–11 (2018). We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s argument because it was not raised before the agency. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (“petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to