Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1731
FREDRIS SERRANO-RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Fredis Serrano-Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 13, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chris E. Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director,
Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez (Serrano), a native and citizen of
Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for cancellation of
removal.
As noted by the Board, Serrano did not argue that the IJ erred
in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal, but instead
contended that “the Board should reconsider its interpretation of
the alien smuggling provision under [8 U.S.C. § 1182](a)(6)(E)(i)
[2012] of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.” Serrano raises
new arguments, however, before this court. He now argues that the
agency erred in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal,
claiming that his case is distinguishable from our decision in
Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2011), and that the record
is inconclusive as to whether he engaged in alien smuggling.
We lack jurisdiction over these new claims, which were not
properly exhausted before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2012) (“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.”); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226
(4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise
each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to
consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we
2
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
3