Iurie Tarna v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 546 F. App'x 232 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1525
IURIE TARNA, a/k/a Jurie Tarna,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: November 18, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
April Cockerham, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES PC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, James
A. Hurley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Iurie Tarna, a native of Latvia and a citizen of
Moldova, 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. *
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Tarna’s merits hearing, his application for
relief, and all 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).
We further conclude that the Board properly declined
to consider Tarna’s pattern or practice claim. Cf. J.W. ex rel.
J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 440, 451 (9th
Cir. 2010) (concluding that the ALJ properly refused to consider
new issues that the student raised in his written closing
argument and noting that the submission of new evidence in
*
Tarna has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
written closing arguments deprived school district of
opportunity to submit documents or raise arguments in response).
In light of Tarna’s failure to properly raise his pattern or
practice claim before the agency, we are similarly barred from
considering the claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012);
Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-39 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tarna (B.I.A. Mar. 22,
2013). 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
3