Julio Cesar Arce Guillen v. Jefferson Sessions III , 714 F. App'x 290 ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2176
JULIO CESAR ARCE GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 8, 2018 Decided: March 14, 2018
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adina Appelbaum, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS (CAIR) COALITION,
Washington, D.C.; Gabriel K. Gillett, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew E. Price, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Julio Cesar Arce Guillen, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 1 We
have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Guillen’s merits hearing
before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision
that Guillen failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution
and a protected ground. Guillen also fails to show that he was denied due process. See
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating elements of a due process
claim in a removal case). Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
we deny the petition for review. 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
1
Guillen does not challenge the finding that his asylum application was untimely or
that he did not meet his burden of proof for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Accordingly, these issues are not reviewable. Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714
F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (deeming issues not raised in opening brief waived).
2
Because the Board did not reach Guillen’s claim that the IJ erred in finding that he
was not a member of a particular social group, we need not address Guillen’s arguments
on this issue.
2