Shqipron Kolgeci v. Jefferson Sessions, III, No. 16-1748 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1748 SHQIPRON KOLGECI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: February 23, 2017 Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marotta, Vernon, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shqipron Kolgeci, a native of Yugoslavia and a citizen of Kosovo, petitions Immigration for Appeals review (Board) of an order dismissing of his the Board appeal from of the immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding Against of removal, Torture. We and protection dismiss in part under and the deny Convention in part the petition for review. Kolgeci 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) (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 Kolgeci has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). 59 (4th Cir. 2009). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358- Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to Kolgeci’s asylum claim. Kolgeci next disputes the agency’s finding that he failed to establish past persecution. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Kolgeci’s merits hearing, his asylum conclude application, that the record and all evidence supporting does not evidence. compel a We ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 2 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), supports the Board’s decision. U.S. 478, 481 (1992). and that substantial evidence See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 Therefore, we deny the petition review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. for See In re Kolgeci (B.I.A. June 9, 2016). Accordingly, we petition for review. facts and materials legal before dismiss in part and deny in part the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
