William Lara-Elias v. Jeff Sessions

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-886-412 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000186188].. [17-1191]

Appeal: 17-1191

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1191

WILLIAM ALEXANDER LARA-ELIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 24, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius,
Assistant Director, Jason Wisecup, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1191

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William Alexander Lara-Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We have

thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lara-Elias’ merits hearing
before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that we are
without jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Lara-Elias’ asylum application is
time-barred. See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that
express language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012) prevents review of IJ’s finding that
applicant did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we
dismiss in part the petition for review. Concerning the Board’s denial of withholding of
removal and protection under the CAT, 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 Board’s decision. See
INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 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 AND DENIED IN PART

2