UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1822
JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ-GALVAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per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, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Richard Zanfardino, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jorge Martinez-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Martinez-Galvan first challenges the agency’s determination
that his asylum application is time-barred and that no
exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2015). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Martinez-Galvan 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). Accordingly, we dismiss the
petition for review with respect to the asylum claim.
Martinez-Galvan next challenges the conclusion that he
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and 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, INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we
2
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Martinez-Galvan (B.I.A. June 25, 2015).
We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3