Levi Mboni v. Loretta Lynch , 625 F. App'x 206 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1561
LEVI MBAWE MBONI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, Christina J. Martin,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Levi Mbawe Mboni, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of Mboni’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
report describing the investigation conducted by the U.S.
Embassy’s Regional Security Office in Yaoundé, Cameroon, the
affidavit submitted by Dairou Yaouba, and all other 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 INS v. Elias–
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Specifically, we reject
Mboni’s claim that the agency unreasonably relied on the
investigative report and further conclude that consideration of
the report was not fundamentally unfair. See Anim v. Mukasey,
535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Mboni (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2015). *
* Before the Board, Mboni merely claimed that the
immigration judge’s decision was “erroneous and contrary to the
record and settled law” and “contrary to the Fourth Circuit
(Continued)
2
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
decision in Anim v. Mukasey.” (J.A. 8). Although we have
considered Mboni’s general claims on appeal, as addressed by the
Board, we lack jurisdiction over many of the specific
contentions raised in Mboni’s brief on the ground that he failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th
Cir. 2010).
3