William Lara-Elias v. Jefferson Sessions III , 700 F. App'x 273 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1191
WILLIAM ALEXANDER LARA-ELIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius,
Assistant Director, Jason Wisecup, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Alexander Lara-Elias, 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 (IJ) 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 Lara-Elias’ merits hearing
before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that we are
without jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Lara-Elias’ asylum application is
time-barred. See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that
express language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012) prevents review of IJ’s finding that
applicant did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we
dismiss in part the petition for review. Concerning the Board’s denial of withholding of
removal and 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).
Accordingly, we 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
2