NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GIOVANI ANTONIO NAJERA MORENO, No. 14-70445 Petitioner, Agency No. A057-630-777 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 12, 2019 Submission Withdrawn September 16, 2019 Resubmitted August 2, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Giovani Antonio Najera Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico who holds Legal Permanent Resident status, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final removal order denying his request for cancellation of removal and his motions to suppress evidence and terminate his immigration proceedings. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, dismiss in part, and remand in part. 1. Najera Moreno asks us to revive his application for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied him such relief on the ground that Najera Moreno had not yet accrued the necessary seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States, limited by the stop-time event of his receipt of a Notice to Appear, and the BIA affirmed without comment. See Alaelua v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that, if the BIA incorporates the IJ’s opinion into its decision, we treat the IJ’s reasons as the BIA’s and review the IJ’s decision). The law governing stop-time events changed after the briefing deadline in Najera Moreno’s BIA appeal had passed, so we grant the petition in this respect and remand his application for cancellation of removal to the BIA for its reconsideration in light of the relevant intervening decisions. See Alcaraz v. I.N.S., 384 F.3d 1150, 1158–60 (9th Cir. 2004); Niz-Chavez v. Garland, --- U.S. ---, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479–82 (2021). 2. Najera Moreno also seeks remand to the BIA for consideration of his request for administrative closure. But he did not pursue such relief before the BIA, even though it was available then. See Garcia-DeLeon v. Garland, 999 F.3d 986, 989 (6th Cir. 2021) (describing the availability of administrative closure for at least three decades until 2018); Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 692 (BIA 2 2012), overruled by Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271, 272 (A.G. 2018), overruled by Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326, 326 (A.G. 2021). Contrary to Najera Moreno’s assertions, the OPPM 13-01 memorandum issued by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge did not change this legal regime. Because we lack “jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in [a petitioner’s] administrative proceedings before the BIA,” we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Moreno’s petition for review of the administrative closure issue. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals