Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01731/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01731-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Fredris Serrano-Rodriguez
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1731 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 

Appeal: 16-1731 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-1731 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3