Anthony Friday Udom v. Department of Homeland Security

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY FRIDAY UDOM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-55349
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02175-WQH-
POR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Friday Udom appeals pro se from the district court’s final
judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition
challenging his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and review for
clear error its factual findings. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010).
We affirm.
The district court correctly dismissed Udom’s habeas petition under the
prudential exhaustion doctrine because Udom, in challenging his ongoing removal
proceedings, had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and did not qualify
for an exception to the exhaustion requirement. See Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d
1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (“As a prudential matter, courts require that habeas
petitioners exhaust all available judicial and administrative remedies before
seeking relief under § 2241.”); see also Cabaccang v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr.
Servs., 627 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he pendency of removal
proceedings means the [petitioners] have not exhausted their administrative
remedies.”).
We deny Udom’s June 8, 2012, “Motion to Submit California State Court -
Order - Dismiss of a Deportable Offense & 1993 Mental Illness Report” to the
extent the motion seeks leave to submit supplemental materials in support of his
appeal. See Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Generally,
we consider only the district court record as developed before appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
12-55349 2

-- 2 of 2 --