UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1436
CONSUELO JANETH BERTOTTY GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-1990
CONSUELO JANETH BERTOTTY GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: April 20, 2016 Decided: July 21, 2016
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director,
Lindsay M. Murphy, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Consuelo Janeth Bertotty Gutierrez, a native and citizen of
Honduras, petitions for review of orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of
removal, and denying her motion to reopen.
Gutierrez first challenges the agency’s determination that
her asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions
applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3), and find that Gutierrez has not raised any claims
that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). 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.
Gutierrez next challenges the conclusion that she failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gutierrez
failed to sustain her burden of proof. Id. at 359.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the question of
Gutierrez’s eligibility for withholding of removal.
3
Finally, we find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying Gutierrez’s motion to reopen. Mosere v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny
the petition for review of that order.
In sum, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions
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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
4