Lillian Leiva-Rodriguez v. Pamela Jo Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 24-2146
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2146 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2146

LILLIAN ELIZABETH LEIVA-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: W. Steven Smitson, SMITSON LAW LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Vanessa M. Otero, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christopher G. Gieger, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2146 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Lillian Elizabeth Leiva-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s oral decision denying Leiva-Rodriguez’s applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We

deny the petition for review.

First, Leiva-Rodriguez repeats her challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction over her

removal proceedings based on the Department of Homeland Security’s failure to identify

the time and date of her initial hearing in the charging Notice to Appear. However, as the

Board explained, this jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United

States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 358-66 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that a Notice to Appear’s

failure to include the date or time of the hearing does not implicate the immigration court’s

jurisdiction or adjudicative authority); see also United States v. Vasquez Flores, No. 19-

4190, 2021 WL 3615366, at *2 n.3 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021) (argued but unpublished)

(reaffirming Cortez after considering Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021)). Leiva-

Rodriguez raises two new iterations of this claim in this court, neither of which were

presented to the Board. Accordingly, we agree with the Attorney General that these new

arguments are unexhausted, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and thus not properly before us for

review, see Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing that, although

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) “is not jurisdictional,” it “remains a mandatory claim-processing

rule”).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2146 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Leiva-Rodriguez’s lone other argument challenges the denial of CAT relief. Upon

review of the record, we conclude that (1) substantial evidence supports the relevant factual

findings, see Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020); and (2) the agency committed

no legal error in its adjudication of Leiva-Rodriguez’s CAT claim, see Lopez-Sorto v.

Garland, 103 F.4th 242, 253 (4th Cir. 2024) (providing standard for reviewing agency’s

ruling on CAT claim). Specifically, there is insufficient evidence in this record to compel

us to reach a result contrary to that of the agency regarding the “predicted outcome after

removal.” McDougall v. Bondi, 150 F.4th 637, 641 (4th Cir. 2025).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Leiva-Rodriguez (B.I.A.

Oct. 18, 2024). 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