UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1093
MARTIAL NIMBO KELOJOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 22, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Dosa-Wea Neufville, III, MORAISNEUFVILLE LAW FIRM, LLC,
Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Martial Nimbo Kelojou, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his request for adjustment of status. Based on
our review of the record and Kelojou’s concession that the
immigration judge lacks jurisdiction over his application for
adjustment of status, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kelojou (B.I.A. Dec. 7,
2007).* 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
*
We find no support for Kelojou’s assertion that he filed a
motion for remand with the Board in August 2006. Accordingly, we
lack jurisdiction over the claims raised in his brief, which all
pertain to the motion for remand, on the ground that we lack
jurisdiction to consider such claims in the first instance. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“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.”); Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised before the
Board).
2