UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2508 JAIME LLANOS-VASQUEZ, a/k/a Santos Jaime Llanos-Vasquez, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: August 20, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Stevens, Doran Shemin, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director, Jonathan K. Ross, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaime Llanos-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Peru, 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, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Llanos-Vasquez first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2019). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Llanos-Vasquez has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to the asylum claim. Llanos-Vasquez next challenges the agency’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record and Llanos-Vasquez’s claims 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, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Llanos-Vasquez (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2019). 2 We grant Llanos-Vasquez’s motion to submit the case on the briefs and 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 18-2508 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ca4 4th Cir. Jaime Llanos-Vasquez v. William Barr 20 August 2019 Unpublished 5df746e16b6cebacf9034be9e02704298636a361
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals