Kenia Moncada-Cambar v. Robert Wilkinson

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Kenia Moncada-Cambar v. Robert Wilkinson

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1413

KENIA JOHANA MONCADA-CAMBAR; RAUL NATAN OCHOA- MONCADA,

Petitioners,

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 25, 2021 Decided: February 2, 2021

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, Ilana Kramer, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioners. Jeffery Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Laura Halliday Hickein, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kenia Johana Moncada-Cambar and her son (collectively Petitioners), natives and

citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) denying their untimely and number-barred motion to reopen. On appeal, the

Petitioners challenge

8 C.F.R. § 1003.15

(b), (c) (2020) as ultra vires, arguing that the

agency lacked the authority to define the term “notice to appear” differently from the

statutory definition set forth in

8 U.S.C. § 1229

(a). Because the Petitioners failed to

exhaust this claim before the Board, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252

(d)(1) (“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[.]”); 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 quotation

marks omitted)). 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished