Court Opinion

ID: 9411525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:24.167508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.339362
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1066      Doc: 24         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1066

        ELITO MARIKE SANTOS MENDES,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: June 27, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elito Marike Santos Mendes, Appellant Pro Se. Duncan Thomas Fulton, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
        D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1066      Doc: 24         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elito Marike Santos Mendes, a native and citizen of Cape Verde, petitions for

        review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his untimely

        appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for deferral of removal under

        the Convention Against Torture and denying to consider the appeal by certification. This

        Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary decision not to certify an

        appeal. See Idrees v. Barr, 923 F.3d 539, 542-43 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the decision

        of whether to certify a claim is committed to agency’s discretion and not reviewable).

        Because Mendes did not timely appeal, his remaining claims are unexhausted and will not

        be considered by this court. See Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259, 264 (2d Cir. 2008)

        (joining other circuits to hold that a late appeal to the Board leaves a petitioner’s claim

        unexhausted). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We deny Mendes’ motions

        for appointment of counsel and to submit additional evidence. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        submissions before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                          PETITION DISMISSED

                                                    2