UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1974
YENNY NATALIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-240-848)
Submitted: February 11, 2005 Decided: March 3, 2005
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, James J. O’Connell, Jr., UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yenny Natalia, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions this court to review a denial by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) of her application for asylum and withholding of
removal. This court “may review a final order of removal only if
. . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available
to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000). In this
case, Natalia’s briefs were twice rejected by the Board on
procedural grounds, and she failed to move for consideration of an
untimely brief. The Board therefore affirmed the immigration
judge’s decision without opinion, with no claims presented by
Natalia for its consideration.
Where Congress has statutorily mandated exhaustion, that
requirement must be enforced. Kurfees v. INS, 275 F.3d 332, 336
(4th Cir. 2001) (applying former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c)); see
Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir.) (applying 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 37 (2004); Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (same). An alien is
required to exhaust administrative remedies as to each claim in
order to preserve judicial review. Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330
F.3d 587, 594 (3d Cir. 2003). We have held that “an alien who has
failed to raise claims during an appeal to the [Board] has waived
his right to raise those claims before a federal court on appeal of
the [Board] decision,” Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir.
- 2 -
1990) (interpreting former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c)), and that the court
lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument not made to the Board.
Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert.
denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005).
Therefore, as Natalia raised no claims before the Board,
we lack jurisdiction to consider any of the claims she seeks to
raise here. We therefore deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -