Court Opinion

ID: 9965070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:37.083659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.994145
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE SANCHEZ-OLIVARES,                         No. 21-1002
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A091-508-494
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Jorge Sanchez-Olivares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to continue removal proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Because Sanchez-Olivares does not challenge the agency’s denial of his

motion to continue, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d

1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Sanchez-Olivares’s contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel

are not properly before the court because he failed to raise them before the BIA.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see

also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1)

is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule); Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-

16 (9th Cir. 2007) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a

motion to reopen before the BIA).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        2                                   21-1002