Court Opinion

ID: 9485311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:58:36.936929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:59.827610
License: Public Domain

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would deny the petition for review because Toledo’s equitable tolling claim, which the majority faults the BIA for failing to address in denying her motion to reopen, was not properly exhausted.
Although Toledo mentioned “tolling” in her reply brief, she never presented any facts or any argument on the issue to the BIA. Thus, her filing does not meet “[t]he policy underlying the exhaustion requirement ... to give an administrative agency the opportunity to resolve a case or controversy or to correct its own errors before judicial intervention.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004). In fact, in her supplemental briefing, Toledo admits that her attorney failed to raise any tolling claim before the BIA.1 Because the claim was not exhausted, it is not ripe for judicial review.
I would therefore deny the petition for review, and respectfully dissent.

. Toledo argues that her attorney Guajardo’s "failure to raise the one claim that provides relief from the time bar must constitute deficient performance. The BIA simply could not consider an argument that was not raised." Supp. Brief at 29 (emphasis added).