Alejandro Macedo Fructuso v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-204-567 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000062618].. [16-1976]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1976 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1976 ALEJANDRO MACEDO FRUCTUSO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 11, 2017 Decided: April 17, 2017 Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley B. Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, AND HELMS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Sunah Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1976 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Alejandro Macedo Fructuso (Macedo), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Macedo raises a due process violation for the first time on appeal, arguing that the immigration judge’s conduct at his removal hearing violated his right to a full and fair hearing. We lack jurisdiction over this claim because Macedo failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the Board. * 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore 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 * Although Macedo notes that there is an exception to the exhaustion requirement for certain constitutional claims, see Farrokhi v. I.N.S., 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990); Gallanosa v. United States, 785 F.2d 116, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1986), we have never extended this exception to “procedural challenges that could have been addressed by the [Board].” Kurfees v. I.N.S., 275 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2001). 2

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?