Candido Delos Angelez Martinez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1254

CANDIDO DELOS ANGELEZ MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: August 24, 2020 Decided: August 28, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Candido Delos Angelez Martinez, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Candido Delos Angelez Martinez (“Martinez”), a native and citizen of El Salvador,
has filed a pro se petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the Immigration Judge’s written decision (1) finding Martinez’s application for
asylum was time-barred; and (2) denying on the merits Martinez’s applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
However, even affording Martinez’s pro se informal brief a liberal construction, see
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (instructing courts to liberally construe pro se
documents), we conclude that Martinez has failed to challenge any aspect of the
Immigration Judge’s dispositive rationale, which the Board expressly adopted by affirming
the order of removal for the reasons set forth by the Immigration Judge. We therefore hold
that Martinez has forfeited appellate review of the Board’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under
Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
Accordingly, we deny the 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 DENIED