citizenship claim.”). It found “extreme circumstances,” id. at 1139, because “[a]n assertion of U.S. ‘citizenship is ... a denial of an essential jurisdictional fact’ in a deportation proceeding.” Id. at 1136 (quoting Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 66 L.Ed. 938 (1922)). It also relied on the principle that American citizenship must be intentionally relinquished. Id. at 1137 (citing Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260-61, 100 S.Ct. 540, 62 L.Ed.2d 461 (1980)). “Because he has a colorable citizenship claim, Rivera has a constitutional right to judicial review, and may obtain such review via habeas corpus even after accepting deportation and waiving his right to appeal the IJ’s decision.” Id.; see also Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under Rivera, “the Constitution is violated
holding agency claim requirements under the federal torts claim act must be exhausted before district court has jurisdiction holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia holding on direct review from the bia that bjecause minasyans claim to citizenship is not patently frivolous we have jurisdiction to review it irrespective of whether he has exhausted his claim before the agency holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim not raised before the bia even when the bia sua sponte considers the claim holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte