Iberly Valdivia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying petition for review [999506942-2]. Originating case number: A076-592-497. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999638962]. [15-1030]

Appeal: 15-1030

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1030

IBERLY FELIX VALDIVIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

July 16, 2015

Decided:

August 12, 2015

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rachel S. Ullman, THE LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL S. ULLMAN, PC,
Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron,
Assistant Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation
Counsel,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1030

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/12/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Iberly

Felix

Valdivia,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Peru,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
judge’s

(“Board”)
(“IJ”)

dismissing
decision

his

appeal

finding

that

ineligible for adjustment of status.

from
he

the

immigration

was

statutorily

We deny the petition for

review.
An applicant for relief from removal bears the burden of
establishing his eligibility for relief.

8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)

(2015); Quitanilla v. Holder, 758 F.3d 570, 579 (4th Cir. 2014).
In an adjustment of status case, the alien must show “clearly
and beyond doubt [that he is] entitled to be admitted and is not
inadmissible

under

[8

U.S.C.]

section

1182.”

8

U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(2)(A) (2012); see Dakura v. Holder, 772 F.3d 994, 998
(4th Cir. 2014).

We review legal issues de novo, “affording

appropriate

deference

[Immigration

and

regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th

Cir. 2008).

to

the

[Board’s]

Nationality

Act]

interpretation
and

any

of

the

attendant

“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.”
the

agency’s

rule.
Here,

factual

Anim v.
because

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
findings

Mukasey,
the

Board

535
did

under
F.3d
not
2

the

243,

We defer to

substantial
252

expressly

(4th

evidence

Cir.

adopt

the

2008).
IJ’s

Appeal: 15-1030

Doc: 26

opinion,

our

Filed: 08/12/2015

review

is

Pg: 3 of 3

limited

to

the

Board’s

order.

Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 & n.1 (4th Cir. 2014).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Valdivia began to accrue unlawful status on January 22,
2001,

and

therefore

conclude

that

Valdivia

burden of showing he was not inadmissible.

did

not

meet

his

Finally, Valdivia

has failed to show that he was unfairly prejudiced by the IJ’s
evidentiary

decisions

and

denied

his

right

to

due

process.

Anim, 535 F.3d at 256.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED

3