Filed: Sep. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2429 JOSE ROBERTO PINEDA PICHINTE, a/k/a Jose Roberto Pineda, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 31, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020 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 Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 OFF
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2429 JOSE ROBERTO PINEDA PICHINTE, a/k/a Jose Roberto Pineda, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 31, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020 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 Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 OFFI..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2429
JOSE ROBERTO PINEDA PICHINTE, a/k/a Jose Roberto Pineda,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 31, 2020 Decided: September 21, 2020
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Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
2
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
3