Shqipron Kolgeci v. Jefferson Sessions, III , 681 F. App'x 176 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1748
SHQIPRON KOLGECI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: February 23, 2017
Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, Vernon, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Benjamin
C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emily
Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Holly M. Smith, Senior
Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shqipron Kolgeci, a native of Yugoslavia and a citizen of
Kosovo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
Kolgeci first challenges the agency’s determination that
his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions
applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Kolgeci has not raised any
claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-
59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for
review with respect to Kolgeci’s asylum claim.
Kolgeci next disputes the agency’s finding that he failed
to establish past persecution. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Kolgeci’s merits hearing,
his asylum application, and all supporting evidence. We
conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8
2
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Therefore, we deny the petition for
review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re
Kolgeci (B.I.A. June 9, 2016).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3