Francisco Popa Cojom v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-013-106 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000000095].. [16-1428]

Appeal: 16-1428

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1428

FRANCISCO
Cojum,

RUBEN

POPA

COJOM,

d/b/a

Francisco

Ruben

Popa

Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

December 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

January 9, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1428

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Francisco

Ruben

Popa

Cojom,

a

native

and

citizen

of

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
removal,

denying

his

motion

Cojom removed to Guatemala.

for

a

continuance,

and

ordering

We dismiss in part and deny in part

the petition for review.
An

immigration

cause shown.”

judge

“may

grant

a

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2016).

continuance

for

good

We review the denial

of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007).

Lendo v.

We will uphold the

denial of a continuance “unless it was made without a rational
explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies,
or

it

rested

on

an

impermissible

basis,

e.g.,

invidious

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.
Cojom

next

pretermitting

argues

his

that

the

application

IJ

for

violated

due

cancellation

process
of

without first hearing testimony on the application.

in

removal
But the

Board dismissed Cojom’s appeal on the IJ’s alternative reason
for

finding

that

Cojom

abandoned
2

his

application

for

Appeal: 16-1428

Doc: 31

cancellation,

Filed: 01/09/2017

to

Pg: 3 of 4

wit:

Cojom’s

failure

to

biometric

requirements

explained

at

first

hearing.

The proffered argument thus is nonresponsive to the

his

comply

with

the

administrative

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
Board

“issues

reasoning,
Moreover,

we

its

own

review

because

Cojom

opinion
only
does

the
not

without

adopting

[Board’s]
challenge

the

final
in

his

IJ’s

order”).
brief

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
in

its

discretion

proceedings.

to

administratively

close

his

removal

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

3

Appeal: 16-1428

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/09/2017

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.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART

4