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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-1731]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FREDRIS SERRANO-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Fredis Serrano-Rodriguez,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
December 13, 2016
December 19, 2016
Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez (Serrano), a native and citizen of
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of
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)
 of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.”
new arguments, however, before this court.
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
consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)).
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
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?