Maritza Barriga-Vega v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1567 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1567 MARITZA ISABEL BARRIGA-VEGA; MARTINEZ; HARLEY SEBASTIAN VELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; G.V., RAFAEL ARTURO VELASQUEZVELASQUEZ-BARRIGA; ANGIE Petitioners, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 17, 2015 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 30, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Christmann, CHRISTMANN LEGAL IMMIGRATION LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rafael Arturo Velasquez-Martinez, his wife, Maritza Isabel Barriga-Vega, and their three children, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition Immigration Appeals for review (Board) of an order dismissing of their the Board from appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of Velasquez-Martinez’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the the record, including the Convention Against Torture. We have transcript of thoroughly Velasquez-Martinez’s supporting evidence. not compel a reviewed ruling merits hearing and all We conclude that the record evidence does contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). See INS v. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. We See In re: Barriga-Vega (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2015). lack jurisdiction to consider Velasquez-Martinez’s challenges to the immigration judge’s denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. 2 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 DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED 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.
