Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1731 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1731 FREDRIS SERRANO-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Fredis Serrano-Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH,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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?