Fatoumatta Jallow v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1518 Doc: 36 Filed: 02/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1518 FATOUMATTA JALLOW, Petitioner, v. DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?