Faustino Rojas v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60660 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate issue date is 12/11/2017 [16-60660]

Case: 16-60660

Document: 00514201608

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/19/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60660
Summary Calendar
FAUSTINO ROJAS, also known as Faustino Rojas-Villa,

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 19, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

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. A038 516 056
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Faustino Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for
review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the
immigration judge’s determination that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B).

Rojas was originally charged in a

notice to appear (NTA) in 2005 with removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(C) as an arriving alien. In 2014, the Department of Homeland

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60660

Document: 00514201608

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/19/2017

No. 16-60660
Security (DHS) withdrew the charge under § 1182(a)(2)(C) and added the
charges under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B) in a Form I-261.
In his first argument, Rojas contends that DHS used the Form I-261 to
improperly change his status from an arriving alien to an admitted alien. We
have jurisdiction to review this argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates,
846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). Rojas’s argument is unavailing because the
NTA alleged, and he conceded, that he was admitted to the United States as a
legal permanent resident in 1983.
Rojas also contends that DHS was required under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(13)(C)(vi) to charge him as an arriving alien following his
unauthorized entry into the United States in July 2015. Rojas did not raise
this argument before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to review it.
§ 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).
The petition for review is DENIED.

2

See