Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0135-01.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

Walter GUEVARA-PORTILLO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-1824.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2016.
    Decided: March 30, 2016.
    Joshua A, Berman, Blaine L. Gilbert & Associates, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfem, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    ’ Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter Guevarar-Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 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 GuevaraPortillo’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. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Guevara-Portillo (B.I.A. June 26, 2015).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara-Portillo’s challenges to the immigration judge’s denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir.2008). We therefore dismiss this portion of 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 DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       Guevara-Portillo 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).