U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

Origel-Haro v. Gonzales

Origel-Haro v. Gonzales
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 13, 2007 · Rymer, Smith, Wardlaw
224 F. App'x 652

Counsel

Margarito Origel-Haro, San Diego, CA, pro se., David J. Zugman, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner., District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., W. Manning Evans, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Origel-Haro v. Gonzales

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

Margarito Origel-Haro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition.

We lack jurisdiction because Origel-Haro failed to exhaust the issue of his removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), based on a conviction for a crime of child abuse or child neglect, before the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). While he did pursue the issue of whether his conviction was a crime of violence, such that it was an aggravated felony under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), the BIA found that Origel-Haro had not challenged the removability finding under § 237(a)(2)(E)(i). Assuming that Origel-Haro’s appeal included the question whether his conviction was a “crime of domestic violence,” under § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), it did not include the other crimes that section makes grounds for removal — a crime of child abuse or child neglect. For this reason the BIA remanded for Origel-Haro to seek relief from removal. On remand, the IJ denied Origel-Haro’s petition for cancellation and ordered him removed. That decision is not reviewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®.

PETITION DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.