Julio Villafuerte Portela v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1057 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1057 JULIO FREDY VILLAFUERTE PORTELA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 3, 2015 Decided: September 17, 2015 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nancy K. Canter, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Julio Fredy Villafuerte Portela, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). various We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the Portela’s documentary conclude merits that exhibits, hearing, the record and the transcript of his supporting affidavit. evidence does not Villafuerte compel a We ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. * See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the reasons stated by the Board. (B.I.A. Dec. 16, 2014). petition for review for the See In re: Villafuerte Portela We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the * Villafuerte Portela failed to challenge before the the denial of his application for protection under the Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review decision. Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 Cir. 2015). 2 Board CAT. that (4th materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
