Claudia Guardado-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch , 670 F. App'x 140 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1053
CLAUDIA GUARDADO-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant
Director, Enitan O. Otunla, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Claudia Yesenia Guardado-Garcia, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Guardado-Garcia first asserts that the Board erred in
finding that she failed to identify her proposed particular
social groups before the IJ, and in declining to consider them
on appeal. Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s
determination that Guardado-Garcia failed to raise her specific
social groups before the IJ. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
consider any claim based on the potential social groups, as they
were not properly exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th
Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise
each argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to
consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We
accordingly dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Guardado-Garcia next contends that the agency erred in
finding that she failed to otherwise establish eligibility for
asylum, withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
2
record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a
ruling contrary to any of the agency’s 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re
Guardado-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2015).
We therefore 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.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3