UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1844
JOSE MARIO GUEVARA-ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 24, 2010 Decided: May 13, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, MARKS, CALDERON, DERWIN & RACINE, P.L.C.,
Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director,
Kristin A. Moresi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Mario Guevara-Romero, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), * and denying his motion to
remand.
Guevara-Romero raises several challenges to the IJ’s
findings pertaining to Guevara-Romero’s failure to establish the
required nexus between his claimed fear of persecution and a
statutorily protected ground and his failure to submit
corroborating evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii)
(2006). However, Guevara-Romero did not raise any of these
issues in his pro se appeal to the Board.
We 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)(1) (2006). This court
has interpreted this provision to operate as a jurisdictional
bar in that “an alien’s failure to dispute an issue on appeal to
*
Because Guevara-Romero does not advance any argument
relevant to the denial of CAT protection, we find he has
abandoned that issue on appeal. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
2
the [Board] constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies that bars judicial review.” Massis v. Mukasey, 549
F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 736
(2009). Because these claims have not been administratively
exhausted, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Massis,
549 F.3d at 638; Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
the petition for review as to those claims that challenge the
IJ’s findings regarding nexus and corroborating evidence.
Guevara-Romero raises one final issue over which we do
have jurisdiction: that the Board abused its discretion in
denying his motion to remand for consideration of evidence not
previously submitted at his merits hearing. We disagree. The
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion,
because the proffered evidence was not previously unavailable
and undiscoverable, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(2009). See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review as to this claim.
For these reasons, we dismiss the petition for review
in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
4