UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2286
SANTOS E. REYES, a/k/a Santos E. Reyes Chicas,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 19, 2015 Decided: August 7, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jesse M.
Bless, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Santos E. Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal and pretermitting his application for cancellation of
removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Reyes’ merits hearing 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 denial of asylum and withholding of removal in this
case. * See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Finally, Reyes’ argument to undermine the decision to pretermit
his application for cancellation of removal is squarely
foreclosed by our recent decision in Hernandez v. Holder, 783
F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board, see In re: Reyes (B.I.A. Oct. 27,
*The immigration judge further denied relief under the
Convention Against Torture, and Reyes did not challenge this
disposition in his administrative appeal. Thus, to the extent
that Reyes seeks review of that ruling, we lack jurisdiction to
review it due to Reyes’ failure to administratively exhaust the
issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597
F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010)
2
2014), and in light of Hernandez. 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