USCA4 Appeal: 22-1215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1215 JOSE FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ-AMAYA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 28, 2022 Decided: December 15, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Jose Francisco Rodriguez-Amaya, 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”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Amaya’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review from that part of the Board’s order. While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Rodriguez-Amaya’s untimely asylum application, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of withholding of removal as this claim is not subject to the one-year time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2022). Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the applicant shows a “clear probability that [his] life or freedom would be threatened because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Tang v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 176, 183 (4th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). If the applicant establishes past persecution on account of a protected ground, “it shall be presumed that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened in the future[.]” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i) (2022). When an applicant claims to fear persecution by a private actor, as in this case, he must also show that the government in his native country is unable or unwilling to control his persecutor. Orellana v. Barr, 925 F.3d 145, 151 (4th Cir. 2019). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1215 Doc: 26 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 3 of 4 We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Diaz de Gomez, 987 F.3d at 363. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Rodriguez did …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals