Julio Villafuerte Portela v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-589-853. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999661885]. [15-1057]

Appeal: 15-1057

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1057

JULIO FREDY VILLAFUERTE PORTELA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 3, 2015

Decided:

September 17, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Jennifer
P.
Levings,
Senior
Litigation Counsel, Nancy K. Canter, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1057

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Julio Fredy Villafuerte Portela, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
various

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the

Portela’s

documentary

conclude

merits
that

exhibits,

hearing,

the

record

and

the

transcript

of

his

supporting

affidavit.

evidence

does

not

Villafuerte

compel

a

We

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

reasons stated by the Board.
(B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2014).

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Villafuerte Portela

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

*

Villafuerte Portela failed to challenge before the
the denial of his application for protection under the
Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review
decision.
Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210
Cir. 2015).

2

Board
CAT.
that
(4th

Appeal: 15-1057

Doc: 26

materials

before

Filed: 09/17/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3