Court Opinion

ID: 9912632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:42.624166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:52.867715
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1383      Doc: 24         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1383

        LUIS ERNESTO CUBIAS ZEPEDA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring,
        Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Sheri R. Glaser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen H. Blosser, Office of Immigration
        Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
        D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1383       Doc: 24          Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Luis Ernesto Cubias Zepeda (Zepeda), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

        for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the

        immigration judge’s oral decision denying Zepeda’s applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review.

               Here, the Board held that Zepeda waived review of the immigration judge’s

        alternative, merits-based rulings by failing to address those aspects of the immigration

        judge’s decision in his administrative appeal brief.           Because those rulings were

        independently dispositive of the applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the

        Board declined to reach the issues that Zepeda did raise in the administrative appeal, which

        related to the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding (ACF) and adverse

        corroboration ruling, and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of relief on the

        alternative bases. Zepeda does not address these aspects of the Board’s decision in his

        brief in this court. Accordingly, we hold that these issues are forfeited. ∗ See Fed. R. App.

        P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party

        forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs); see also

        Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives

        an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its

               ∗
                 Zepeda has also forfeited review of the immigration judge’s denial of his claim for
        relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which likewise was not raised in the
        administrative appeal and similarly is not raised in the brief submitted to this court. See
        Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner’s
        failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1383      Doc: 24         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)). And while

        Zepeda does present extensive argument related to the immigration judge’s ACF and ruling

        as to the lack of corroborating evidence, those arguments are not properly before us for

        review because the Board specifically declined to address those aspects of the immigration

        judge’s ruling and, thus, did not rely on that rationale to affirm the order of removal. See

        Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, “[w]hen the

        Board adopts the analysis used by the IJ [and] supplements it with its own reasoning, we

        review both decisions,” but that “we limit our consideration of the IJ’s [decision] to the

        portions that have been adopted and incorporated into the Board’s decision” (internal

        quotation marks omitted)).

               Finally, to the extent that Zepeda presents a cursory challenge to the agency’s

        alternative, merits-based rulings, we agree with the Attorney General that those issues are

        not exhausted because Zepeda did not raise them on appeal to the Board and, thus, they are

        not properly before this court. See Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2023)

        (observing that, although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional, it “remains a

        mandatory claim-processing rule”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In

        re Cubias Zepeda (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2023). 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

                                                     3