UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1001
RAMON ABEL CRUZ-ZELAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 22, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Acting Assistant
Director, Maarja T. Luhtaru, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ramon Abel Cruz-Zelaya, 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 Cruz-Zelaya’s requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Cruz-Zelaya challenges the agency’s determination
that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances
to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012). We lack jurisdiction to review
this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and
conclude that Cruz-Zelaya has failed to raise a constitutional
claim or question of law that would fall under the exception to
this jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012). See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir.
2014); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying
merits of Cruz-Zelaya’s asylum claims. Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of the petition for review.
Cruz-Zelaya also challenges the agency’s finding that he
failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Cruz-
Zelaya’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude
2
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 INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for
the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Cruz-Zelaya (B.I.A.
Dec. 1, 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