Maritza Barriga-Vega v. Loretta Lynch , 627 F. App'x 245 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1567
MARITZA ISABEL BARRIGA-VEGA; RAFAEL ARTURO VELASQUEZ-
MARTINEZ; HARLEY SEBASTIAN VELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; ANGIE
VELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; G.V.,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 17, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Daniel Christmann, CHRISTMANN LEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rafael Arturo Velasquez-Martinez, his wife, Maritza Isabel
Barriga-Vega, and their three children, natives and citizens of
Colombia, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of Velasquez-Martinez’s requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Velasquez-Martinez’s merits hearing and all
supporting evidence. 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). Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Barriga-Vega (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2015).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Velasquez-Martinez’s
challenges to the immigration judge’s denial of his request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture on the ground
that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631,
638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss this portion of
the petition for review.
2
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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3