Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Leonardo PORTILLO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 17-60004 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed March 8, 2018
    Michael Milone Prestí, Esq., Prestí Law Firm, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner
    Jesse David Lorenz, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Oscar Leonardo Portillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He challenges the decision to pretermit his application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents. According to Portillo, the Immigration Judge improperly pretermitted his application due to his multiple criminal offenses with an aggregate sentence to confinement of five years or more. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(B), 1229b(b)(l)(C).

In part, Portillo’s challenge is foreclosed by our court’s ruling in Pina-Galindo v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 193, 194-95 (5th Cir. 2015). There, a panel determined that the BIA had reasonably rejected the argument that the statutory reference to a singular “offense under § 1182(a)(2)(B)” did not “limit ineligibility for cancellation of removal to offenses under § 1182(a)(2)(A).” Pina-Galindo, 803 F.3d at 194-95. To the extent that Portillo argues that we should revisit the issue in Pina-Galindo, 803 F.3d at 194-95, we are prohibited from doing so here. Mercado v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[0]ne panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

As for Portillo’s remaining argument that the Immigration Judge prematurely pretermitted his application for relief, the argument is unexhausted. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2009).

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.