UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1328
ELVIS DAVID LEWIS,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-594-192)
Submitted: January 15, 2008 Decided: January 29, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Russell Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvis David Lewis, a native and citizen of Grenada,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing Lewis’s appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s decision denying relief from removal. Lewis first
challenges the finding that he is removable for falsely claiming
United States citizenship, and asserts that the Board erred in
finding that he never contested this ground of removability on
appeal. Our review discloses that Lewis in fact failed to exhaust
administrative remedies with respect to this claim by raising it on
appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, we lack
jurisdiction to review this unexhausted claim. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2000). Next, Lewis asserts that his right to due
process was violated when the Immigration Judge precluded the
presentation of evidence of rehabilitation at the 2005 hearings
concerning Lewis’s attempt to adjust his status. We find that
Lewis cannot succeed with this due process claim because he fails
to show the requisite prejudice resulting from the alleged error.
See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review. We deny Lewis’s motion to reconsider the
denial of his motion to remand. Finally, we dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
- 3 -