FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court HELEGNER RAMON TIJERA MORENO, Petitioner, v. No. 18-9516 (Petition for Review) JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Helegner Ramon Tijera Moreno, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his asylum application. 1 For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition for review. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 We afford Mr. Moreno’s pro se materials a solicitous construction. See Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). I Mr. Moreno applied for admission to the United States on September 4, 2016. Following a credible-fear interview, he was charged with removal as an alien who, at the time of his application for admission, did not possess a valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Mr. Moreno conceded the charge but applied for asylum, restriction on removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After a hearing, an immigration judge (IJ) denied relief and ordered him removed to Venezuela. Mr. Moreno appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the denial of relief. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that Mr. Moreno failed to show he suffered past persecution. The BIA further determined that he failed to satisfy the more demanding standard for restriction on removal and that he abandoned his CAT claim. Mr. Moreno now challenges the denial of his asylum application. 2 II We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Karki v. Holder, 715 F.3d 792, 800 (10th Cir. 2013). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2 Mr. Moreno does not challenge the denial of restriction on removal or CAT protection. Although he briefly contends that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution, even if he did not suffer past persecution, the BIA concluded—and the administrative record confirms—that he failed to exhaust that issue. Accordingly, we do not consider it. See Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1118 (10th Cir. 2007). 2 To obtain asylum, an alien must demonstrate he is a refugee, meaning he is a person outside of his country “who is unable or unwilling to return to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals