UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1293
JOSE MATEO GONZALEZ-ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: December 1, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Perham Makabi, Kew Gardens, New York, for Petitioner. Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, David J. Schor, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Mateo Gonzalez-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying relief from removal. Gonzalez-Alvarez
raises a single issue on appeal, asserting that the Board erred in declining to address his
claim, raised for the first time in his administrative appeal, that he qualified for asylum
based on imputed anti-gang political opinion. Upon review, we conclude that
Gonzalez-Alvarez’s administrative appeal brief did not meet the requirements of a motion
to reconsider or remand, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1) (2020), and that the Board did
not err in declining to consider his claim based on anti-gang political opinion for the first
time on appeal. See Matter of W-Y-C-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190 (B.I.A. 2018) (noting that
Board has long held that it will generally not consider arguments or claims that could have,
but were not, raised before the IJ). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re Gonzalez-Alvarez (B.I.A. Feb. 11, 2020). 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
2