Claudia Guardado-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1053

CLAUDIA GUARDADO-GARCIA,

Petitioner,

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per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. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant
Director, Enitan O. Otunla, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Claudia Yesenia Guardado-Garcia, a native and citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the

Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture.

Guardado-Garcia first asserts that the Board erred in

finding that she failed to identify her proposed particular

social groups before the IJ, and in declining to consider them

on appeal. Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s

determination that Guardado-Garcia failed to raise her specific

social groups before the IJ. We therefore lack jurisdiction to

consider any claim based on the potential social groups, as they

were not properly exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. §

1252(d)(1) (2012); 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)). We

accordingly dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Guardado-Garcia next contends that the agency erred in

finding that she failed to otherwise establish eligibility for

asylum, withholding of removal or protection under the

Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the

2
record and 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) (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

Guardado-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 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