Fatoumatta Jallow v. Dana Boente , 675 F. App'x 394 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1518
FATOUMATTA JALLOW,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 8, 2017
Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director,
Victoria M. Braga, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fatoumatta Jallow, a native and citizen of The Gambia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of her asylum application as time-barred. The agency
granted Jallow’s request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2012).
On appeal, Jallow challenges the agency’s determination that
she failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse the
untimely filing of her asylum application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012). We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and
conclude that Jallow has failed to properly raise a constitutional
claim or question of law that would fall under the exception set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). * See Mulyani v. Holder,
771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d
353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Given this jurisdictional bar, we
cannot review the underlying merits of Jallow’s asylum claims.
* We lack jurisdiction over Jallow’s due process claims on
the ground that she failed to raise them on appeal to the Board.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final order
of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Kporlor v. Holder,
597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an
alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have
jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss 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
3