`
`United States Court of Appeals
`For the First Circuit
`
`No. 08-2245
`
`AMJAD ALI RANA,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL,
`*
`Respondent.
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
`OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
`
`Before
` Lynch, Chief Judge,
`Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.
`
`William E. Graves, Jr. and Graves & Doyle on brief for
`petitioner.
`Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S.
`Department of Justice, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Office
`of Immigration Litigation, and Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
`Attorney General, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
`
`June 24, 2009
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General
`*
`Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been substituted for former Attorney
`General Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent.
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM. Petitioner Amjad Ali Rana, a native and
`citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a final order of
`removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). His sole
`argument in his petition is that the BIA erred in finding him
`inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), which renders
`inadmissible certain aliens who illegally reenter the United States
`after being ordered removed, because he reentered the United States
`prior to the statute's effective date. Rana did not present this
`argument to the BIA.
`Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite
`for judicial review of a final order of removal from the BIA. 8
`U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Where, as here, the petitioner fails to
`present an argument to the BIA, he has not exhausted his
`administrative remedies, see, e.g., Mejia-Rodriguez v. Holder, 558
`F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 2009); Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
`Cir. 2008); Sunoto v. Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2007); Un
`v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205, 210-11 (1st Cir. 2005), and we lack
`jurisdiction to decide the issue.
`The petition for review is dismissed.
`
`-2-
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
