Maria Marquez Guevara v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-2488 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2488 MARIA DELMIS MARQUEZ GUEVARA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, D.C., for Respondent. Benjamin C. Song Park, Immigration Washington, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maria Delmis Marquez Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review Immigration Appeals (Board) Immigration Judge’s denial of an order dismissing of her of her the appeal requests for finding that Board of from the asylum and withholding of removal. * Marquez Guevara application is applicable. time-barred See § 1208.4(a)(2) challenges 8 U.S.C. (2016). We the and that no § 1158(a)(2)(B) lack her asylum exceptions (2012); jurisdiction to 8 were C.F.R. 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 (2012). the 2009). exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 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 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. Guevara (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2015). See In re Marquez 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
