Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02096/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Dagoberto Mejia-Alvarado
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2096

DAGOBERTO MEJIA-ALVARADO,

 Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 6, 2020

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dagoberto Mejia-Alvarado, Petitioner Pro Se. Todd J. Cochran, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2096 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/06/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dagoberto Mejia-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. While 

Mejia-Alvarado claims on appeal that he qualified for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture, and further requests a grant of 

cancellation of removal, he did not administratively exhaust these claims before the Board. 

“[A]rguments that a petitioner did not raise in the [Board] proceedings have not been 

exhausted and the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.” Cabrera v. Barr, 930 F.3d 

627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2018) (stating that Court “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.

Accordingly, as Mejia-Alvarado’s claims for relief have not been administratively 

exhausted, we lack jurisdiction to consider them and dismiss the petition for review with 

respect to those claims. To the extent Mejia-Alvarado challenges the Board’s denial of his 

request for remand, we have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of 

discretion. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005); see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a) (2019). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2096 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/06/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

by the Board. In re Mejia-Alvarado (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2019). 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.

DISMISSED IN PART,

DENIED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2096 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/06/2020 Pg: 3 of 3