UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1582
ITZEL SOLANGE RAMOS-BONILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 16, 2021 Decided: February 24, 2021
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan S. Greene, GREENE LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel,
D. Nicholas Harling, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Itzel Solange Ramos-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying Ramos-Bonilla’s applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Ramos-Bonilla first contends
that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings because her notice to appear
did not designate a date and time for her removal hearing. Because Ramos-Bonilla failed
to exhaust this claim before the Board, we dismiss in part the petition for review for lack
of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (providing that a court may only review a final
order of removal if “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the
alien as of right”); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well
established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have
jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Turning to Ramos-Bonilla’s challenges to the denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, we have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearings and all
supporting evidence. We 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), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). We therefore
2
deny this portion of the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re
Ramos-Bonilla (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 2018).
Accordingly, we 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,
DENIED IN PART
3
Itzel Ramos-Bonilla v. Robert Wilkinson
Combined Opinion