Court Opinion

ID: 9961906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:51.280183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:12.038222
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1704      Doc: 29         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1704

        ANTONIUS DA SILVA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Alex G. Isbell, PALLADINO, ISBELL & CASAZZA, LLC, Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1704      Doc: 29          Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Antonius Da Silva, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order

        of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s

        decision denying Da Silva’s application for withholding of removal. ∗ We deny the petition

        for review.

               Here, the Board held that Da Silva waived review of one of the immigration judge’s

        alternative, dispositive rulings—to wit: that Da Silva failed to establish that the Indonesian

        government is unable or unwilling to control his alleged persecutors, see Portillo Flores v.

        Garland, 3 F.4th 615, 626, 632-37 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (discussing three elements of

        an asylum claim, particularly the “government control element”)—by failing to

        specifically address that aspect of the immigration judge’s decision in his administrative

        appeal brief. Because this ruling was independently dispositive of Da Silva’s application

        for withholding of removal, the Board declined to reach the issues that Da Silva did assert

        and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of relief on this basis.

               Upon consideration of the arguments Da Silva raises in this court, we discern no

        error in the Board’s application of its procedural waiver rule. See In re D-G-C-, 28 I. & N.

        Dec. 297, 297 n.1 (B.I.A. 2021) (observing Board’s procedural rule that issues a respondent

        does not meaningfully challenge on appeal will be deemed waived); cf. Pinos-Gonzalez v.

               ∗
                 Da Silva does not challenge the agency’s analysis as to the timeliness of his asylum
        application or the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against
        Torture. Accordingly, 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).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1704         Doc: 29       Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 3 of 3

        Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 440-41 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding no error in Board’s application of

        procedural waiver to petitioner). Thus, we agree with the Attorney General that the

        arguments Da Silva advances regarding the government control element are not

        administratively exhausted, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and therefore are not properly

        before us for review, see Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing

        that, although § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional, it “remains a mandatory claim-processing

        rule”).

                  Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Da Silva (B.I.A. June 7,

        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