Cecilio Mejia Juarez 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECILIO MEJIA JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74658
Agency No. A076-708-426
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Cecilio Mejia Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, cancellation
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NED/Research 06-74658 2
of removal, and voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 894
(9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider Mejia Juarez’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination because the IJ’s alternative finding that Mejia Juarez did not
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground is dispositive of Mejia Juarez’s asylum claim, and he did not
challenge this finding before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004) (this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not
exhausted).
We also do not consider Mejia Juarez’s contentions regarding the fairness of
his hearing and continuous presence in the United States because he failed to raise
his due process and cancellation of removal claims before the BIA. See id.
Meija Juarez’s contention that his notice to appear was defective because it
did not specify the date and time of his removal hearing is foreclosed by Popa, 571
F.3d at 896 (NTA and hearing notice combined satisfied requirements of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229(a)(1)(G)(i)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --