UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1057
JULIO FREDY VILLAFUERTE PORTELA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 3, 2015 Decided: September 17, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Nancy K. Canter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Julio Fredy Villafuerte Portela, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
various documentary exhibits, the transcript of Villafuerte
Portela’s merits hearing, and his supporting affidavit. We
conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the agency’s 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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Villafuerte Portela
(B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
* Villafuerte Portela failed to challenge before the Board
the denial of his application for protection under the CAT.
Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review that
decision. Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 (4th
Cir. 2015).
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3