UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1337
LILIAN HAYDEE DIAZ-VELASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 3, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per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, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lilian Haydee Diaz-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
The Board found that Diaz-Velasquez failed to appeal the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for withholding
of removal and for protection under the Convention Against
Torture and therefore deemed these issues waived. Although
Diaz-Velasquez challenges the denial of both forms of relief
before this court, we lack jurisdiction to consider her claims
on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey,
549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We likewise lack
jurisdiction to consider Diaz-Velasquez’s claim that she
established eligibility for asylum based on her membership in
the particular social group consisting of her family as this is
not the proposed social group that she presented to the
immigration judge. See § 1252(d)(1). We therefore dismiss the
petition for review in part.
Turning to Diaz-Velasquez’s claim that she established
eligibility for asylum based on her membership in the defined
2
particular social group of witnesses to a crime, we have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the
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 agency’s decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 (1992). We therefore deny the petition for review in part
for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Diaz-Velasquez
(B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2015).
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;
DENIED IN PART
3