UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1824
WALTER GUEVARA-PORTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 30, 2016
Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Berman, BLAINE L. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Walter Guevara-Portillo, 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 requests for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. *
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Guevara-Portillo’s 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 Board’s decision. See Gomis,
571 F.3d at 359. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Guevara-Portillo (B.I.A. June 26, 2015).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara-Portillo’s
challenges to the immigration judge’s denial of his request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture on the ground
that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631,
*
Guevara-Portillo does not challenge the denial of his
asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction
to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis
v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss this portion of
the petition for review.
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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3