Case: 16-60660 Document: 00514201608 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60660 FILED Summary Calendar October 19, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FAUSTINO ROJAS, also known as Faustino Rojas-Villa, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A038 516 056 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Faustino Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a petition for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s determination that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B). Rojas was originally charged in a notice to appear (NTA) in 2005 with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) as an arriving alien. In 2014, the Department of Homeland * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-60660 Document: 00514201608 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2017 No. 16-60660 Security (DHS) withdrew the charge under § 1182(a)(2)(C) and added the charges under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B) in a Form I-261. In his first argument, Rojas contends that DHS used the Form I-261 to improperly change his status from an arriving alien to an admitted alien. We have jurisdiction to review this argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 810 (5th Cir. 2017). Rojas’s argument is unavailing because the NTA alleged, and he conceded, that he was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1983. Rojas also contends that DHS was required under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(vi) to charge him as an arriving alien following his unauthorized entry into the United States in July 2015. Rojas did not raise this argument before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See § 1252(d)(1); Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009). The petition for review is DENIED. 2 16-60660 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Faustino Rojas v. Jefferson Sessions, III 19 October 2017 Immigration Unpublished ee32e21c1b2450692e59bf8484d77cdbb9da7713
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals