Julius Chuya Tikum v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-515-956 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930714].. [15-2540]

Appeal: 15-2540

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2540

JULIUS CHUYA TIKUM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

August 31, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Assistant Attorney General,
Mark Walters, Acting Assistant Director, John F. Stanton, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2540

Doc: 24

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Julius

Chuya

Tikum,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Cameroon,

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

(Board)

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

Immigration

Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of
removal. *

We have thoroughly reviewed the 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board.
2015).
legal
before

See In re Tikum (B.I.A. Nov. 12,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

*

Tikum argues on appeal that he qualified for protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
As the Board found that
Tikum failed to raise a meaningful challenge to the denial of
this relief, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhausted
claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012).

2