Baltazar Hernandez Barron Margarita Hernandez Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
- Decided
- February 10, 2004
- Docket
- 02-70887
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,983 timesAbrogated on other grounds (verified)Abrogated on other grounds (verified) · Soto Cedeno v. Bondi
What later courts said
- holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a jurisdictional requirement, and failure to exhaust deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction — Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain (2009)
- holding that the plain text of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) “specifically mandates that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction” — Maria Opico-Alfaro v. William Barr (2020)
- holding that a petitioner must raise an issue before the proper administrative forum if they wish to preserve the issue for appeal — Irma Geronimo-Carrillo v. Jeffrey Rosen (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether we have jurisdiction to consider a due process claim that the petitioners did not present to the Immigration and Naturalization Service or to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
I
Statutes cited
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252
- 8 U.S.C. § 1105a
- 28 U.S.C. § 1129b
Cite this
Baltazar Hernandez Barron Margarita Hernandez Ramirez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, 358 F.3d 674 (2004)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.