UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2032
OSCAR ROLANDO GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 31, 2019 Decided: June 12, 2019
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, 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Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Deitz P. Lefort, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar Rolando Gomez-Hernandez (Gomez), a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Gomez’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Gomez’s merits hearing before
the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction
to review the immigration judge’s finding, affirmed by the Board, that Gomez’s asylum
application is time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Mulyani v. Holder, 771
F.3d 190, 197 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that the express language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
prevents appellate review of the immigration judge’s factual finding that applicant did not
establish changed or extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Concerning the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT,
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 denial of relief in this case, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of
jurisdiction and deny the petition in part for the reasons stated by the Board in its order
adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s oral decision. See In re Gomez-
Hernandez (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART,
DENIED IN PART
3