Rodolfo Baide-Sabillon v. Jefferson Sessions III , 686 F. App'x 190 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2039
RODOLFO NORIEL BAIDE-SABILLON,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 26, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Gary J. Newkirk, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodolfo Noriel Baide-Sabillon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the petition for review.
We will not review the agency’s adverse credibility finding or the finding that the
corroborating evidence was insufficient because Baide-Sabillon failed to raise those
issues on appeal to the Board. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final
order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available
to the alien as of right.”); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is
well established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before [the Court
has] jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We conclude that
the Board’s order dismissing Baide-Sabillon’s appeal from the IJ’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a different result. Mulyani v.
Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 197 (4th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, 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
2