Fernando Alameda-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-60703 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: FPB , Judge: JLD , Judge: ECP [15-60703]

Case: 15-60703

Document: 00513934311

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/31/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 15-60703
Summary Calendar
FERNANDO
Rodriguez,

ALAMEDA-RODRIGUEZ,

also

March 31, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

known

as

Fernando

A.

Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A084 817 063
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Fernando Alameda-Rodriguez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his application pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) for cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship
grounds. Alameda-Rodriguez argues that the immigration judge, and in turn
the BIA, erred in failing to consider the hardship that both of his children

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 15-60703

Document: 00513934311

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/31/2017

No. 15-60703
would suffer if he were removed from the United States. He contends that the
hardship of his son was not considered at all. However, he did not raise this
claim before the BIA. Accordingly, Alameda-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and the claim is not considered.

See Wang v.

Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Because we lack jurisdiction to
review unexhausted claims, see Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.
1986), the petition is dismissed.
DISMISSED.

2