Iurie Tarna v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1525 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1525 IURIE TARNA, a/k/a Jurie Tarna, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 14, 2013 Decided: November 18, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. April Cockerham, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, James A. Hurley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Iurie Moldova, Tarna, petitions Immigration for Appeals immigration of native review of and Latvia an and order dismissing denial removal, of of ( Board ) judge s withholding a his a of his the under of from for the of Board appeal requests protection citizen the asylum, Convention Against Torture. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript relief, of and Tarna s all merits supporting hearing, evidence. his We application conclude that for the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative (2012), and decision. factual that findings, substantial see 8 U.S.C. evidence § 1252(b)(4)(B) supports the Board s See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We further conclude that the Board properly declined to consider Tarna s pattern or practice claim. Cf. J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 440, 451 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the ALJ properly refused to consider new issues argument that and the noting student that the raised in his submission of * written new closing evidence in Tarna has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 2 written closing arguments deprived school district of opportunity to submit documents or raise arguments in response). In light of Tarna s failure to properly raise his pattern or practice claim before the agency, we are similarly barred from considering Massis v. the claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-39 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 2013). legal before See In re: Tarna (B.I.A. Mar. 22, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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.
