Court Opinion

ID: 9881773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:46.538799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:48.263719
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1615      Doc: 39         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1615

        ORALIZ SARAI VILLATORO CLAROS,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: W. Steven Smitson, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan A. Robbins, Assistant Director, Zoe
        J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigraiton Litigation, Civil Division,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1615       Doc: 39         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Oraliz Sarai Villatoro Claros (Villatoro), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

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

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

        withholding of removal. We deny the petition for review.

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

        primary alternative ruling—to wit: that Villatoro failed to establish that the Honduran

        government is unable or unwilling to control her private-actor persecutor, 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 address that aspect of the immigration judge’s decision in her administrative appeal

        brief. Because that ruling was independently dispositive of the applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal, the Board declined to reach the issue that Villatoro did raise in the

        administrative appeal, which related to the immigration judge’s social group analysis, and

        affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of relief on the alternative basis. Villatoro does

        not address these aspects of the Board’s decision in her brief in this court. Accordingly,

        we hold that these issues are waived. ∗ See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Grayson

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

               ∗
                  Villatoro has also waived review of the immigration judge’s denial of her 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: 22-1615       Doc: 39         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its argument—even if

        its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

        And while Villatoro does present an extensive argument related to the immigration judge’s

        social group analysis, that argument is not properly before us for review because the Board

        specifically declined to address that aspect 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)).

               Next, Villatoro repeats her challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over her removal

        proceedings based on the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to identify the place,

        time, and date of her initial hearing in the charging Notice to Appear. However, as the

        Board explained, this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v.

        Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 358-66 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that a Notice to Appear’s failure to

        include the date or time of the hearing does not implicate the immigration court’s

        jurisdiction or adjudicative authority); see also United States v. Vasquez Flores, No. 19-

        4190, 2021 WL 3615366, at *2 n.3 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (argued but unpublished)

        (reaffirming Cortez after considering Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)).

               Finally, Villatoro asks that we remand this matter to allow for the exercise of

        prosecutorial discretion. However, it is clear from the Attorney General’s later filing with

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1615      Doc: 39         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        this court that Villatoro’s request for prosecutorial discretion has been considered and

        rejected. Accordingly, we decline Villatoro’s request for remand.

               For these reasons, we deny 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

                                                     4