Mordecia Phungeh v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 31, 2022
• Docket: 21-1768
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1768

MORDECIA VISHEGHO PHUNGEH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: August 19, 2022 Decided: August 31, 2022

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review

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

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Phungeh’s application for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Initially, we discern no

abuse of discretion in the IJ’s decision to deny Phungeh’s motion for a continuance. Lendo

v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Next, the record belies Phungeh’s

arguments that the IJ failed to adjudicate her withholding claim and that she was unduly

prevented from testifying. Finally, we must dismiss Phungeh’s petition with respect to her

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as she did not present that claim to the Board. See

Stewart v. U.S. I.N.S., 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999) (explaining that appellate court

lacks jurisdiction over noncitizen’s unexhausted ineffective assistance claim).

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Phungeh’s 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