Nelson Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch

657 F. App'x 207
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 3, 2016
Docket16-1682
StatusUnpublished

This text of 657 F. App'x 207 (Nelson Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nelson Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch, 657 F. App'x 207 (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Rodriguez, a native and' citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the petitioner’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Here, the agency denied Rodriguez’s application for withholding of removal on the ground that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between his fear of persecution and a protected ground. In his informal brief, Rodriguez fails to challenge the basis for the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and has therefore forfeited appellate review. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (deeming issues not raised in opening brief waived); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007) (same). We therefore deny the petition for review in part.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez’s challenges to the immigration *208 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.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny in part and dismiss 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 DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dario Suarez-Valenzuela v. Eric Holder, Jr.
714 F.3d 241 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
Massis v. Mukasey
549 F.3d 631 (Fourth Circuit, 2008)
Niang v. Gonzales
492 F.3d 505 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 F. App'x 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-rodriguez-v-loretta-lynch-ca4-2016.