UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2213
GUADALUPE DIAZ-VELASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 17, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; granted and remanded in part by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anser Ahmad, AHMAD and ASSOCIATES, McLean, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Hillel
R. Smith, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Guadelupe Diaz-Velasquez, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
On appeal, Diaz-Velasquez challenges the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his
asylum application. We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find
that Diaz-Velasquez has not raised any claims that would fall
under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358–59 (4th Cir.
2009). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the
underlying merits of his asylum claims. Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of the petition for review.
Diaz-Velasquez also contends that the agency erred in
denying his request for withholding of removal. * In analyzing
* Diaz-Velasquez failed to challenge the agency’s denial of
his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
his claims, the agency did not have the benefit of our recent
decision in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir.
2015), which addressed gang threats made to a family member. We
therefore grant the petition for review in part and remand Diaz-
Velasquez’s claim for withholding of removal for further
proceedings in light of Hernandez-Avalos. 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;
GRANTED AND REMANDED IN PART
3