UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1189
HILDA MENDEZ AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: October 4, 2013
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF ANNA AITA, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Jessica E.
Sherman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hilda Mendez Aguilar, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing Mendez Aguilar’s appeal from
the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss the petition for review in
part and deny it in part.
We first note that the agency denied Mendez Aguilar’s
request for asylum on the ground that she failed to establish,
by clear and convincing evidence, that she filed her asylum
application within one year of her last arrival in the United
States, and failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to
excuse the late filing of her application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2013). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006), and conclude that Mendez Aguilar has not
raised a constitutional claim or question of law that would fall
under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358–59 (4th Cir.
2009). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the
underlying merits of her asylum claim. Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of the petition for review.
2
Mendez Aguilar next challenges the agency’s denial of
her request for withholding of removal. “Withholding of removal
is available . . . if the alien shows that it is more likely
than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in the
country of removal because of her race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2006). An alien “must show a ‘clear
probability of persecution’ on account of a protected ground.”
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 788 (2012). To qualify for relief, the alien must show that
the persecution suffered or feared was or would be committed by
the government or by forces that the government is unwilling or
unable to control. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117,
128 (4th Cir. 2011).
Our review of the record confirms that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mendez Aguilar
failed to satisfy her burden of proving that she faces a clear
probability of future harm by her abusive former partner.
Mendez Aguilar testified that she has had no contact with this
man, who is a Mexican citizen, since 2007. Moreover, as the
Board noted, there is no evidence in the record to establish
that the Guatemalan authorities are unable or unwilling to
3
control the abuser’s actions, let alone evidence that would
compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2006).
Finally, Mendez Aguilar seeks review of the agency’s
denial of her request for protection under the CAT. But in her
notice of appeal to the Board, Mendez Aguilar failed to raise
any argument in support of her eligibility for this form of
relief. We thus lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted
claim, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006), and dismiss it
accordingly. Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226-28 (4th Cir.
2010).
For these reasons, we dismiss the petition for review
in part and deny it in part. 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
4