Jorge Martinez-Galvan v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1822 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1822 JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ-GALVAN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 19, 2016 Before KING and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and April 28, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Richard Zanfardino, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jorge Martinez-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Martinez-Galvan first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. that no See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2015). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Martinez-Galvan has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the asylum claim. Martinez-Galvan next challenges the conclusion that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under thoroughly reviewed evidence does not the Convention the record compel a Against and ruling Torture. conclude contrary that to We the any have record 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 2 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Martinez-Galvan (B.I.A. June 25, 2015). We therefore dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 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.
