Olympio v. Mukasey , 302 F. App'x 229 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1027
    MELISSA AYODELE OLYMPIO,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   September 25, 2008         Decided:   December 11, 2008
    Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elizabeth L. Young, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IMMIGRATION
    CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.      Gregory G. Katsas,
    Acting Assistant Attorney General, Alison Marie Igoe, Senior
    Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
    for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Melissa Ayodele Olympio, a native and citizen of Togo,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial
    of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
    under the Convention Against Torture.
    Olympio’s sole claim on appeal is that the immigration
    judge erroneously applied the new provisions of the REAL ID Act in
    assessing her credibility.   Because Olympio failed to raise this
    claim before the Board, we find that she has failed to exhaust her
    administrative remedies and we therefore lack jurisdiction over the
    petition for review.   See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1) (2006) (“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.”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 
    362 F.3d 264
    , 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004)
    (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument
    that was not raised before the Board).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.      We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1027

Citation Numbers: 302 F. App'x 229

Judges: Wilkinson, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/11/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024