Fermin Flores-Mendez 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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERMIN FLORES-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73170
Agency No. A071-595-673
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Fermin Flores-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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
JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 06-73170 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and due process challenges.
Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Flores-Mendez contends that his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was defective
because the issuing officer did not check the box indicating that he provided
Flores-Mendez with a list of free legal services organizations. The BIA properly
rejected the argument. See Kohli, 473 F.3d at 1068-70 (holding that a defective
NTA did not violate due process where no prejudice was shown).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Flores-Mendez’s challenges to the IJ’s
physical presence and good moral character determinations because he did not
raise these claims in his brief before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d
1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (when a petitioner files a brief before the
BIA, the petitioner will “be deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised
and argued in his brief before the BIA”) (internal citations omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --