Mordecia Phungeh v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1768
MORDECIA VISHEGHO PHUNGEH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 19, 2022 Decided: August 31, 2022
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington,
Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Phungeh’s application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Initially, we discern no
abuse of discretion in the IJ’s decision to deny Phungeh’s motion for a continuance. Lendo
v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Next, the record belies Phungeh’s
arguments that the IJ failed to adjudicate her withholding claim and that she was unduly
prevented from testifying. Finally, we must dismiss Phungeh’s petition with respect to her
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as she did not present that claim to the Board. See
Stewart v. U.S. I.N.S., 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999) (explaining that appellate court
lacks jurisdiction over noncitizen’s unexhausted ineffective assistance claim).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Phungeh’s 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
2