NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ELIOT OSWALDO POCASANGRE, No. 10-70629
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-877-669
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges
Eliot Oswaldo Pocasangre, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
*
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).
849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Pocasangre failed to establish the seven
years of continuous physical presence required under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(2) to
be eligible for derivative special rule cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §
1240.61(a)(4); Barrios, 581 F.3d at 858-59.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pocasangre’s request to
remand to the IJ to apply for asylum where he had not applied for asylum before
the IJ and failed to demonstrate that he sought relief based on circumstances that
arose subsequent to his hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Romero-Ruiz, 538
F.3d at 1063-64.
We lack jurisdiction to review Pocasangre’s remaining contentions because
he failed to raise them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-70629
3 10-70629