Jacinta Fon v. Loretta Lynch , 623 F. App'x 607 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1129
JACINTA NEH FON,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Brendan P. Hogan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jacinta Neh Fon, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Fon first challenges the agency’s determination that her
asylum application is time-barred, and contends that she
qualified for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2015). We lack jurisdiction to review
this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and
find that Fon 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
Fon’s asylum claim.
Fon next contends that the agency erred in finding that she
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012),
and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.
See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. Accordingly, we deny the petition
2
for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Fon (B.I.A. Jan. 9, 2015).
We therefore 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