Case ID: f-appx_631/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mounir Ben HASSINE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-1352.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 22, 2015.
    Decided: Jan. 28, 2016.
    Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER ■ CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Mounir Ben Hassine, a native and citizen of Tunisia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ben Hassine’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Ben Hassine’s motion to remand or in the immigration judge’s denial of his motion for a continuance.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Ben Hassine (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2015). 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 DENIED. 
      
       Ben Hassine does not challenge the denial of his asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.2009).