Fatoumatta Jallow v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-825-249 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000019746].. [16-1518]

Appeal: 16-1518

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1518

FATOUMATTA JALLOW,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 19, 2017

Decided:

February 8, 2017

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director,
Victoria M. Braga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1518

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fatoumatta

Jallow,

a

native

and

citizen

of

The

Gambia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of her asylum application as time-barred.

The agency

granted Jallow’s request for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2012).
On appeal, Jallow challenges the agency’s determination that
she failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse the
untimely

filing

of

her

asylum

§ 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2012).
determination

pursuant

to

application.

See

8

U.S.C.

We lack jurisdiction to review this
8

U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(3)

(2012),

and

conclude that Jallow has failed to properly raise a constitutional
claim or question of law that would fall under the exception set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). *

See Mulyani v. Holder,

771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d
353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).

Given this jurisdictional bar, we

cannot review the underlying merits of Jallow’s asylum claims.

*

We lack jurisdiction over Jallow’s due process claims on
the ground that she failed to raise them on appeal to the Board.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final order
of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Kporlor v. Holder,
597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an
alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have
jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotations omitted)).
2

Appeal: 16-1518

Doc: 36

Filed: 02/08/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED

3