Raymond K. Asare, a.k.a Raymond Asare v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND K. ASARE, a.k.a Raymond
Asare,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71083
Agency No. A096-396-374
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Raymond K. Asare, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
FILED
JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71083 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez de Alcantar v.
Holder, 645 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Asare is removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) on the basis of his two convictions for petty theft with prior
convictions of theft, in violation of California Penal Code § 666. See United States
v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 136-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (petty theft is a crime
involving moral turpitude).
The BIA correctly determined that Asare is ineligible for cancellation of
removal because he was served with a Notice to Appear in March 2010, less than
seven years after his admission to the United States in July 2003. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(2) (applicant must establish seven years of continuous residence after
admission), (d)(1)(A) (period of residence ends with service of Notice to Appear).
To the extent Asare challenges the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum,
we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge because he did not exhaust it before
the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(issues not argued in a petitioner’s BIA appeal brief are unexhausted, and the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider them).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --