UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1996
JANETH MARIBEL HERNANDEZ-ZALDIVAR; D.I.L.H.; J.A.O.H.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 7, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hale W. Hawbecker, LAW OFFICE OF HALE HAWBECKER, Woodbridge, Virginia,
for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Matthew B. George,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Janeth Maribel Hernandez-Zaldivar and her minor children, all natives and citizens
of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Hernandez-
Zaldivar’s application for asylum. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and deny
in part the petition for review.
First, while Hernandez-Zaldivar faults the IJ for not considering certain evidence
submitted in support of her asylum application, she failed to present this argument to the
Board. As a result, this claim is unexhausted, so we dismiss this part of the petition for
lack of jurisdiction. See Cabrera v. Barr, 930 F.3d 627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[A]rguments
that a petitioner did not raise in the [Board] proceedings have not been exhausted and th[is]
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them.”); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Regarding Hernandez-Zaldivar’s other arguments, we have thoroughly reviewed
the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence
supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the remainder of Hernandez-Zaldivar’s petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re Hernandez-Zaldivar (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
2