Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01567/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01567-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maritza Isabel Barriga-Vega
Petitioner
G.V.
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Angie Velasquez-Barriga
Petitioner
Harley Sebastian Velasquez-Barriga
Petitioner
Rafael Arturo Velasquez-Martinez
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1567

MARITZA ISABEL BARRIGA-VEGA; RAFAEL ARTURO VELASQUEZMARTINEZ; HARLEY SEBASTIAN VELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; ANGIE 

VELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; G.V.,

Petitioners,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Daniel Christmann, CHRISTMANN LEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1567 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Arturo Velasquez-Martinez, his wife, Maritza Isabel 

Barriga-Vega, and their three children, natives and citizens of 

Colombia, petition for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of Velasquez-Martinez’s requests for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture. 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the 

transcript of Velasquez-Martinez’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 INS v. 

Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the 

Board. See In re: Barriga-Vega (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2015).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Velasquez-Martinez’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.

Appeal: 15-1567 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-1567 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3