Fabian Vasquez v. Jefferson Sessions III , 694 F. App'x 128 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2441
FABIAN CANSECO VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan S. Greene, GREENE LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
Director, Julia J. Tyler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fabian Canseco Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s
decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons set forth below, we deny
the petition for review.
The agency’s decision regarding whether an applicant has complied with the one-
year time limit for filing an asylum application or established changed or extraordinary
circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any court. 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); see also Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir.
2014); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Although 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012) provides that any provision under the Immigration and
Nationality Act which limits or eliminates judicial review shall not be construed as
precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law, we have held that the
question of whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed or
extraordinary circumstances exception applies “is a discretionary determination based on
factual circumstances.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358. We have reviewed the record and
Vasquez’s brief and conclude that he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or
question of law. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that Vasquez’s
asylum application was untimely. We further conclude that the Board’s denial of
Vasquez’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT is
2
supported by substantial evidence and the record does not compel a different result. Id.
at 359; Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 354 (4th Cir. 2006).
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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3