Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02540/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02540-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Julius Chuya Tikum
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2540

JULIUS CHUYA TIKUM,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Assistant Attorney General, 

Mark Walters, Acting Assistant Director, John F. Stanton, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2540 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Julius Chuya Tikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

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 asylum and withholding of 

removal.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude 

that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to 

any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports 

the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the 

reasons stated by the Board. See In re Tikum (B.I.A. Nov. 12, 

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

 * Tikum argues on appeal that he qualified for protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. As the Board found that 

Tikum failed to raise a meaningful challenge to the denial of 

this relief, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted 

claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012).

Appeal: 15-2540 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 2