Lilian Diaz-Velasquez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-992-845 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999693472].. [15-1337]

Appeal: 15-1337

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1337

LILIAN HAYDEE DIAZ-VELASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

November 3, 2015

Decided:

November 5, 2015

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

Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per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, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Jamie M. Dowd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-1337

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lilian Haydee Diaz-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

Immigration

for

Appeals

immigration

(Board)

judge’s

withholding

of

review

an

order

dismissing

denial

removal,

of

of

and

of

her

her

the

appeal

requests

protection

Board

under

from

for
the

of
the

asylum,

Convention

Against Torture.
The Board found that Diaz-Velasquez failed to appeal the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for withholding
of

removal

Torture

and

and

for

protection

therefore

deemed

under

these

the

issues

Convention
waived.

Against
Although

Diaz-Velasquez challenges the denial of both forms of relief
before this court, we lack jurisdiction to consider her claims
on

the

ground

that

she

failed

to

exhaust

her

administrative

remedies.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey,

549

631,

F.3d

jurisdiction

638-40

to

(4th

consider

Cir.

2008).

We

Diaz-Velasquez’s

likewise

claim

that

lack
she

established eligibility for asylum based on her membership in
the particular social group consisting of her family as this is
not

the

proposed

immigration judge.

social

group

that

See § 1252(d)(1).

she

presented

to

the

We therefore dismiss the

petition for review in part.
Turning

to

Diaz-Velasquez’s

claim

that

she

established

eligibility for asylum based on her membership in the defined
2

Appeal: 15-1337

Doc: 24

particular

Filed: 11/05/2015

social

group

of

Pg: 3 of 3

witnesses

to

a

crime,

we

have

thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the
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 agency’s decision.
481 (1992).

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

We therefore deny the petition for review in part

for the reasons stated by the Board.

In re: Diaz-Velasquez

(B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2015).
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;
DENIED IN PART

3