Karen Garcia-Fuentes v. Jefferson Sessions III ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1774
KAREN YOHANA GARCIA-FUENTES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 22, 2018 Decided: April 6, 2018
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Sharon M. Clay, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Karen Yohana Garcia-Fuentes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of
removal. *
Before the immigration judge, Garcia-Fuentes claimed to have a well-founded fear
of persecution in Honduras on account of her imputed political opinion and her
membership in a particular social group that she defined as “young, unprotected
entrepreneurial moms in Honduras expressly opposed to gang practices, principles, and
values and who wish to protect their own health and safety and welfare as well as that of
their families from such practices, principles, and values.” The agency also sua sponte
considered Garcia-Fuentes’ eligibility for relief based on her membership in the particular
social group of her family.
Before this court, however, Garcia-Fuentes advances a different protected ground
in order to establish her eligibility for relief. Abandoning the grounds she presented before
the agency, she now argues that the gangs sought to persecute her on account of her
membership in the particular social group of merchants. We lack jurisdiction over Garcia-
Fuentes’ new claims, which were not properly exhausted before the Board. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has
*
Garcia-Fuentes does not appeal the agency’s denial of her request for protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), conceding that “no good faith basis for relief
under CAT exists.”
2
exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Kporlor v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise
each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal
quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3