UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1524
ROSMERY JULIA VEGA-ARGENDONA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-774-663)
Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 26, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part; granted in part and remanded by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim-Bun Thomas Li, LI, LATSEY & GUITERMAN, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James A. Hunolt, Senior Ligation Counsel, Lindsay L. Chichester,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rosmery Julia Vega-Argendona, a native and citizen of
Bolivia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the IJ’s
finding of ineligibility for adjustment of status. We have
reviewed Vega-Argendona’s challenge to the finding that she failed
to qualify for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
CAT, and conclude that she fails to demonstrate that the evidence
compels a contrary result. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We therefore deny the petition for review in
part with respect to these claims.
Vega-Argendona next disputes, inter alia, the finding
that she is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) (2000),
and is thus ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility that would
be necessary for her to qualify for adjustment of status. She
contends that the agency overlooked legal and factual issues
related to her claim, in that it did not make a finding as to the
date or dates on which she made the alleged false representation,
a date which is directly relevant to whether the ground of
removability is in fact applicable to her.
As our review discloses that this claim has not in fact
been addressed below, we grant the petition for review in part and
- 2 -
remand this issue and other issues related to that ground of
removability to the Board. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 126 S. Ct.
1613, 1615 (2006); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART;
GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED
- 3 -