Case Name: Ricardo GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 17-1440
Parties: Ricardo GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Ricardo GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-1440
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 20, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have. thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Gonzalez's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the finding that Gonzalez could safely relocate in El Salvador to avoid future persecution, 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We further conclude that, because Gonzalez failed to exhaust his challenge to the IJ's decision denying his application for protection under the CAT, we are without jurisdiction to review that portion of his claim. See Urbina v. Holder, 745 F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 2014) (dismissing in part petition for review for failure to exhaust).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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; DISMISSED IN PART