Rene Enmanuel Rivera Portillo v. Jefferson B. Sessions III , 699 F. App'x 272 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1334
RENE ENMANUEL RIVERA PORTILLO, a/k/a Rene Portillo, a/k/a Rene
Enmanuel Portillo Ochoa, a/k/a Rene Enmanuel Portillo Rivera,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 19, 2017 Decided: October 31, 2017
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Carl H. McIntyre,
Assistant Director, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rene Enmanuel Rivera Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Portillo’s merits hearing
before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. Portillo has waived review of
the agency’s decision that he was not a member of a cognizable social group for purposes
of asylum and withholding of removal because, in his appellate brief, he fails to challenge
the finding that his group lacked particularity and social distinction. See IGEN Int’l,
Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d 303, 308, 309 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (“Failure to
present or argue assignments of error in opening appellate briefs constitutes a waiver of
those issues.”). Regarding the Board’s denial of protection under the CAT, we conclude
that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative
factual findings, see 8 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). We
also conclude that the Board’s denial of the motion to remand was not an abuse of
discretion. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard
of review).
2
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
3