Case Name: Fernando ALAMEDA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Fernando A. Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-31
Citations: 684 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 15-60703 Summary Calendar
Parties: Fernando ALAMEDA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Fernando A. Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Fernando ALAMEDA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Fernando A. Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
No. 15-60703 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 31, 2017
Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Offices of Malvern C.-Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner
Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fernando Alameda-Rodriguez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision denying his application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) for cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship grounds. Alameda-Rodriguez argues that the immigration judge, and in turn the BIA, erred in failing to consider the hardship that both of his children would suffer if he were removed from the United States. He contends that the hardship of his son was not considered at all. However, he did not raise this claim before the BIA, Accordingly, Alameda-Rodriguez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the claim is not considered. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Because we lack jurisdiction to review unexhausted claims, see Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1986), the petition is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R-. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.