Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01990/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01990-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Consuelo Janeth Bertotty Gutierrez
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1436

CONSUELO JANETH BERTOTTY GUTIERREZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 15-1990

CONSUELO JANETH BERTOTTY GUTIERREZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals

Submitted: April 20, 2016 Decided: July 21, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 15-1990 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, 

Lindsay M. Murphy, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1990 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Consuelo Janeth Bertotty Gutierrez, a native and citizen of 

Honduras, petitions for review of orders of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of 

removal, and denying her motion to reopen.

Gutierrez first challenges the agency’s determination that 

her asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions 

applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). We lack 

jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(3), and find that Gutierrez has not raised any claims 

that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review 

with respect to the asylum claim.

Gutierrez next challenges the conclusion that she failed to 

establish eligibility for withholding of removal. We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gutierrez 

failed to sustain her burden of proof. Id. at 359. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the question of 

Gutierrez’s eligibility for withholding of removal. 

Appeal: 15-1990 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Finally, we find that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to reopen. Mosere v. 

Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny

the petition for review of that order.

In sum, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions 

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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

DENIED IN PART

Appeal: 15-1990 Doc: 22 Filed: 07/21/2016 Pg: 4 of 4