Richard Noriega Reinoso v. Todd Blanche

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1821

RICHARD ALCIDES NORIEGA REINOSO; ALESSANDRA NICOLE
NORIEGA PALOMINO,

Petitioners,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jose Martin Blanco, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brett A.
Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward
C. Durant, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Richard Alcides Noriega Reinoso and his daughter, Alessandra Nicole Noriega
Palomino, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
We deny the petition for review.
Because the Board used its “streamlined process” to affirm the IJ’s decision without
opinion, we review “the IJ’s decision for the reasoning, recognizing that the Board has
concluded that any error in reasoning is harmless or nonmaterial.” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the
agency’s determination regarding an applicant’s eligibility for asylum and withholding of
removal if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). “[A]dministrative 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). Legal issues, however, are reviewed de novo. Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).
Here, the IJ found that Petitioners failed to show that the Peruvian government was
unable or unwilling to protect them from criminal groups demanding money and
threatening them because of Noriega Reinoso’s job in the financial industry. “When an

*
Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the
CAT. Accordingly, they have forfeited that claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah
v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023).

3

applicant claims that she fears persecution by a private actor, she must also show that the
government in her native country is unable or unwilling to control her persecutor.” Diaz
de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Whether a government is unable or unwilling to control private actors is a
factual question that must be resolved based on the record in each case.” Crespin-
Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation modified). Upon review
of the record, considered in conjunction with the relevant authorities and the issues raised
in this court, we discern no legal error in the agency’s analysis of this issue. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s ruling that Petitioners failed to establish that the Peruvian
government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the private-actor persecutors.
Because the agency’s finding that the Peruvian government was able or willing to protect
them was dispositive of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, see
Molina-Diaz v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 568, 579 (4th Cir. 2025), we need not address Petitioners’
remaining arguments on those applications. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
To the extent Petitioners contend that the Board committed legal error when it
summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, they have not demonstrated legal
error in the Board’s decision. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 279-83
(4th Cir. 2004).
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