Israel Arroyo-Amador v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1505
ISRAEL ARROYO-AMADOR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 27, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Farhad Sethna, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C.
Payne, Assistant Director, Neelam Ihsanullah, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Israel Arroyo-Amador, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Arroyo-Amador first challenges the agency’s determination
that his asylum application is time-barred and that no
exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Arroyo-Amador has not raised
any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d
353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the
petition for review with respect to the asylum claim.
Arroyo next disputes the agency’s denial of his
applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Arroyo-Amador’s merits
hearing, his asylum application, and all supporting evidence.
We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence
2
supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re
Arroyo-Amador (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2016). Finally, Arroyo-Amador
claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the
Immigration Judge, upon granting his motion to reconsider based
on new caselaw, closed the evidentiary record, ordered
supplemental briefing, and did not consider new evidence that
Arroyo-Amador sought to introduce in support of his claims.
Upon review, we find that Arroyo failed to show that the
proceeding was fundamentally unfair or that the outcome of his
case was prejudiced by the IJ’s ruling. Anim v. Mukasey, 535
F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
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.
DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3