Iberly Valdivia v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1030
IBERLY FELIX VALDIVIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 16, 2015 Decided: August 12, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rachel S. Ullman, THE LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL S. ULLMAN, PC,
Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron,
Assistant Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation
Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Iberly Felix Valdivia, a native and citizen of Peru,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding that he was statutorily
ineligible for adjustment of status. We deny the petition for
review.
An applicant for relief from removal bears the burden of
establishing his eligibility for relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)
(2015); Quitanilla v. Holder, 758 F.3d 570, 579 (4th Cir. 2014).
In an adjustment of status case, the alien must show “clearly
and beyond doubt [that he is] entitled to be admitted and is not
inadmissible under [8 U.S.C.] section 1182.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(2)(A) (2012); see Dakura v. Holder, 772 F.3d 994, 998
(4th Cir. 2014). We review legal issues de novo, “affording
appropriate deference to the [Board’s] interpretation of the
[Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant
regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th
Cir. 2008). “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to
the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence
rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).
Here, because the Board did not expressly adopt the IJ’s
2
opinion, our review is limited to the Board’s order.
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2014).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Valdivia began to accrue unlawful status on January 22,
2001, and therefore conclude that Valdivia did not meet his
burden of showing he was not inadmissible. Finally, Valdivia
has failed to show that he was unfairly prejudiced by the IJ’s
evidentiary decisions and denied his right to due process.
Anim, 535 F.3d at 256.
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3