Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-132-075. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999989534]. [16-1731]

Appeal: 16-1731

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1731

FREDRIS SERRANO-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Fredis Serrano-Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 13, 2016

Decided:

December 19, 2016

Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris E. Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director,
Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1731

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez (Serrano), a native and citizen of
Honduras,

petitions

Immigration

for

Appeals

review

(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

his

of

the

appeal

Board
from

of
the

immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of
removal.
As noted by the Board, Serrano did not argue that the IJ erred
in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal, but instead
contended that “the Board should reconsider its interpretation of
the alien smuggling provision under [8 U.S.C. § 1182](a)(6)(E)(i)
[2012] of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.”
new arguments, however, before this court.

Serrano raises

He now argues that the

agency erred in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal,
claiming that his case is distinguishable from our decision in
Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2011), and that the record
is inconclusive as to whether he engaged in alien smuggling.
We lack jurisdiction over these new claims, which were not
properly exhausted before the Board.

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

[Board]

before

we

have

consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)).
2

jurisdiction

to

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 16-1731

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/19/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

dismiss the petition for review.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED

3