Maria Delmis Marquez Guevara v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2488
MARIA DELMIS MARQUEZ GUEVARA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 22, 2016
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maria Delmis Marquez Guevara, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and
withholding of removal.*
Marquez Guevara challenges the finding that her asylum
application is time-barred and that no exceptions were
applicable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find
that Marquez Guevara has not raised any claims that would fall
under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with
respect to the asylum claim.
To the extent Marquez Guevara challenges the Board’s
finding that she failed to establish eligibility for withholding
of removal, 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) (2012), and that substantial evidence
* Marquez Guevara does not raise any claims regarding the
denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Marquez
Guevara (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2015). 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

-- 3 of 3 --