Santos Reyes v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A072-415-515. Copies to all parties and the agency.[999636284]. [14-2286]

Appeal: 14-2286

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/07/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2286

SANTOS E. REYES, a/k/a Santos E. Reyes Chicas,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

June 19, 2015

Decided:

August 7, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jesse M.
Bless, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2286

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/07/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Santos

E.

Reyes,

a

native

and

citizen

of

El

Salvador,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal and pretermitting his application for cancellation of
removal.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the

transcript of Reyes’ merits hearing and all supporting evidence.
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 asylum and withholding of removal in this
case. *

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Finally, Reyes’ argument to undermine the decision to pretermit
his

application

for

cancellation

of

removal

is

squarely

foreclosed by our recent decision in Hernandez v. Holder, 783
F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

petition

for

review

for

the

reasons stated by the Board, see In re: Reyes (B.I.A. Oct. 27,
*

The immigration judge further denied relief under the
Convention Against Torture, and Reyes did not challenge this
disposition in his administrative appeal.
Thus, to the extent
that Reyes seeks review of that ruling, we lack jurisdiction to
review it due to Reyes’ failure to administratively exhaust the
issue. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597
F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010)

2

Appeal: 14-2286

2014),

Doc: 25

and

in

Filed: 08/07/2015

light

of

Pg: 3 of 3

Hernandez.

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

3