Case Name: Oscar Osmin SERRANO-AGUILAR, a/k/a Oscar Osmin Serrano, a/k/a Oscar Arnulfo-Espinoza, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-31
Citations: 697 F. App'x 160
Docket Number: No. 17-1138
Parties: Oscar Osmin SERRANO-AGUILAR, a/k/a Oscar Osmin Serrano, a/k/a Oscar Arnulfo-Espinoza, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 160–161

Head Matter:
Oscar Osmin SERRANO-AGUILAR, a/k/a Oscar Osmin Serrano, a/k/a Oscar Arnulfo-Espinoza, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-1138
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 31, 2017
John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda Wernery, Assistant Director, Sarah Byrd, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Osmin Serrano-Aguilar, 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 request for withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Serrano-Aguilar'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 for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Serrano-Aguilar (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Serrano-Aguilar does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture or the denial of his asylum claim as untimely and has therefore waived appellate review. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Serrano-Aguilar's asylum application was untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).