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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000000095].. [16-1428]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1428 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/09/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1428 FRANCISCO Cojum, RUBEN POPA COJOM, d/b/a Francisco Ruben Popa Petitioner, v. LORETTA E.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 THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 9, 2017 DAVIS, Senior Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?