Opinion
No. 19-2429
09-21-2020
JOSE ROBERTO PINEDA PICHINTE, a/k/a Jose Roberto Pineda, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Roberto Pineda Pichinte, 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 denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Pineda Pichinte 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); 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) and find that Pineda Pichinte has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 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.
Pineda Pichinte next challenges the agency's denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Pineda Pichinte's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We 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), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Pineda Pichinte (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2019).
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.
DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART