Jose Guevara-Romero v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100513

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1844

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.

Submitted:

March 24, 2010

Decided:

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Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

order

dismissing

appeal

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

U.S.C. did

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) raise any of these

However,

Guevara-Romero

not

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)

*

2

the

[Board]

constitutes

a

failure

to

exhaust

administrative

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

denying

motion,

because the proffered evidence was not previously unavailable and undiscoverable, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)

(2009).

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

dispense

with

oral

because

facts

3

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

4