Francisco Popa Cojom v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-013-106 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1428]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
December 29, 2016
Before DIAZ and
January 9, 2017
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Christopher Buchanan, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order pretermitting his application for cancellation of
Cojom removed to Guatemala.
We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2016).
We review the denial
of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007).
We will uphold the
denial of a continuance “unless it was made without a rational
explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies,
discrimination against a particular race or group.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Id. at 441
Upon review of the record
and Cojom’s claims, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
denial of a continuance in this case.
without first hearing testimony on the application.
Board dismissed Cojom’s appeal on the IJ’s alternative reason
Pg: 3 of 4
The proffered argument thus is nonresponsive to the
Board’s rationale for affirming the IJ’s order, which is what is
before us on review.
See Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d
944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining that where, as here, the
basis the Board identified for affirming the IJ’s ruling, the
propriety of that ruling is beyond our reach.
See Wahi v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., 562 F.3d 599, 605 n.13 (4th Cir.
2009) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)).
Finally, Cojom maintains that the agency should have acted
Review of the record reveals that Cojom did not
raise this issue on appeal to the Board.
Cojom’s failure to
exhaust this issue deprives us of jurisdiction to consider it.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final
order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”);
Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is
well established that an alien must raise each argument to the
Pg: 4 of 4
[Board] before we have jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part and
dismiss it in part for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with
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?