Julio Rosales-Beltran v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-1018
    JULIO CESAR ROSALES-BELTRAN,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Submitted: November 22, 2019                                 Decided: December 6, 2019
    Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Luis C. Diaz, LAW OFFICES OF LUIS C. DIAZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
    Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director,
    Ashley Martin, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Julio Cesar Rosales-Beltran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the
    immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
    and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because Rosales-Beltran only raises
    issues that were not raised on appeal to the Board, we dismiss the petition for review.
    “[A]rguments that a petitioner did not raise in the [Board] proceedings have not
    been exhausted and [we] lack[] jurisdiction to consider them.” Cabrera v. Barr, 
    930 F.3d 627
    , 631 (4th Cir. 2019); see also 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1) (2012) (stating that we “may
    review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
    remedies available to the alien as of right”). “Only after the [Board] has rendered a decision
    on an argument or claim is that argument or claim said to have been exhausted.” Cabrera,
    930 F.3d at 631. “In sum, we have consistently held that . . . when a petition contains an
    argument that has never been presented to the [Board] for consideration, we lack
    jurisdiction to consider it even if other arguments in the petition have been exhausted.” Id.
    Rosales-Beltran argues that he is not required to fulfill the requirements for
    demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel under In re Lozada, 
    19 I. & N. Dec. 637
    (B.I.A. 1988), if his case is on appeal to the Board and not on a motion to reopen. He
    further argues that the IJ erred by not clarifying his particular social group, citing In re W-
    Y-C- & H-O-B-, 
    27 I. & N. Dec. 189
     (B.I.A. 2018) (holding IJ must ensure that particular
    social group asserted by alien is included in the IJ’s decision and IJ should seek clarification
    2
    if particular social group is not clear). Neither of these issues were presented on appeal to
    the Board.
    Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction to consider Rosales-Beltran’s arguments,
    we dismiss the petition for review. We deny as moot the Attorney General’s motion for
    summary disposition.     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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1018

Filed Date: 12/6/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/6/2019