Mounir Ben Hassine v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1352
MOUNIR BEN HASSINE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2016
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mounir Ben Hassine, a native and citizen of Tunisia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. * We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ben Hassine’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 Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. We further
find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Ben
Hassine’s motion to remand or in the immigration judge’s denial
of his motion for a continuance.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re: Ben Hassine (B.I.A. Mar. 4,
2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
*
Ben Hassine does not challenge the denial of his asylum
claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to
review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3