Opinion
21-1768
08-31-2022
MORDECIA VISHEGHO PHUNGEH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 19, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se.
Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision denying Phungeh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Initially, we discern no abuse of discretion in the IJ's decision to deny Phungeh's motion for a continuance. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Next, the record belies Phungeh's arguments that the IJ failed to adjudicate her withholding claim and that she was unduly prevented from testifying. Finally, we must dismiss Phungeh's petition with respect to her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as she did not present that claim to the Board. See Stewart v. U.S. I.N.S., 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999) (explaining that appellate court lacks jurisdiction over noncitizen's unexhausted ineffective assistance claim).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Phungeh's 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