Jose Guevara-Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIO GUEVARA-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
March 24, 2010
May 13, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, MARKS, CALDERON, DERWIN & RACINE, P.L.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin A. Moresi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jose Mario Guevara-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, Appeals' petitions ("Board") for review of the Board his of Immigration from the
immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), * and denying his motion to remand. Guevara-Romero raises several challenges to the IJ's findings pertaining to Guevara-Romero's failure to establish the required nexus between his claimed fear of persecution and a statutorily corroborating (2006). protected evidence. ground See 8 and his failure to submit
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) raise any of these
issues in his pro se appeal to the Board. We may review a final order of removal only if "the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006). This court
has interpreted this provision to operate as a jurisdictional bar in that "an alien's failure to dispute an issue on appeal to
Because Guevara-Romero does not advance any argument relevant to the denial of CAT protection, we find he has abandoned that issue on appeal. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
remedies that bars judicial review."
Massis v. Mukasey, 549
F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 736 (2009). Because these claims have not been administratively See Massis,
exhausted, we lack jurisdiction to consider them.
549 F.3d at 638; Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
the petition for review as to those claims that challenge the IJ's findings regarding nexus and corroborating evidence. Guevara-Romero raises one final issue over which we do have jurisdiction: that the Board abused its discretion in
denying his motion to remand for consideration of evidence not previously submitted at his merits hearing. Board did not abuse its discretion in We disagree. the The
because the proffered evidence was not previously unavailable and undiscoverable, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we deny the
2005) (stating standard of review). petition for review as to this claim.
For these reasons, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction argument and deny the it in part. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?