Henry Portillo Silva v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 21, 2022
• Docket: 21-2388
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2388 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2388

HENRY F. PORTILLO SILVA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; JANEAN OHIN, Acting Director of Immigration & Customs Enforcement,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: July 13, 2022 Decided: July 21, 2022

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Marie V. Robinson, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2388 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Henry F. Portillo Silva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Portillo Silva asserts that the IJ

erred in denying protection under the CAT because the IJ did not quantify and tally the

possibility of torture from all possible groups to determine if it is more likely than not that

he will be tortured. We dismiss the petition for review.

A petitioner who fails to raise a particular claim before the Board fails to exhaust

that claim. See Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015). “It is well

established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before we have

jurisdiction to consider it.” Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal

quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). We have “no authority” to

consider issues not raised before the Board. Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823

n.3 (4th Cir. 2020); see also Cabrera v. Barr, 930 F.3d 627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating

that “when a petition contains an argument that has never been presented to the [Board] for

consideration, we lack jurisdiction to consider it even if other arguments in the petition

have been exhausted”). This exhaustion requirement is applied to both “final orders of

removal globally” and “particular claims specifically.” Shaw v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 448,

456 (4th Cir. 2018) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

We conclude that Portillo Silva failed to exhaust his issue before the Board.

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue and dismiss the petition for review.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2388 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/21/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DISMISSED