Opinion
No. 16-72889
05-21-2018
NELSON JR. MANANTAN BUEMIO, AKA Nelson M. Buemio, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A056-519-167 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Nelson Jr. Manantan Buemio, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") order denying his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 409 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Buemio is removable where Buemio failed to demonstrate any egregious circumstance that would justify relieving him from his attorney's admissions at the pleadings stage. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 831-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing egregious circumstances that, if present, justify relieving an alien of his attorney's admissions); Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2007) (alien's admissions at pleadings stage constitute clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence of removability).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
To the extent Buemio contends the IJ was biased or denied him a full and fair hearing, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.