Richard Noriega Reinoso v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1821 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1821

RICHARD ALCIDES NORIEGA REINOSO; ALESSANDRA NICOLE NORIEGA PALOMINO,

Petitioners,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 16, 2026 Decided: July 20, 2026

Before WILKINSON, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jose Martin Blanco, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-1821 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Richard Alcides Noriega Reinoso and his daughter, Alessandra Nicole Noriega

Palomino, natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * We deny the petition for review.

Because the Board used its “streamlined process” to affirm the IJ’s decision without

opinion, we review “the IJ’s decision for the reasoning, recognizing that the Board has

concluded that any error in reasoning is harmless or nonmaterial.” Camara v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will affirm the

agency’s determination regarding an applicant’s eligibility for asylum and withholding of

removal if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). “[A]dministrative findings of fact are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues, however, are reviewed de novo. Li

Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

Here, the IJ found that Petitioners failed to show that the Peruvian government was

unable or unwilling to protect them from criminal groups demanding money and

threatening them because of Noriega Reinoso’s job in the financial industry. “When an

* Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the CAT. Accordingly, they have forfeited that claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1821 Doc: 43 Filed: 07/20/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

applicant claims that she fears persecution by a private actor, she must also show that the

government in her native country is unable or unwilling to control her persecutor.” Diaz

de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “Whether a government is unable or unwilling to control private actors is a

factual question that must be resolved based on the record in each case.” Crespin-

Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 128 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation modified). Upon review

of the record, considered in conjunction with the relevant authorities and the issues raised

in this court, we discern no legal error in the agency’s analysis of this issue. Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s ruling that Petitioners failed to establish that the Peruvian

government was unable or unwilling to protect them from the private-actor persecutors.

Because the agency’s finding that the Peruvian government was able or willing to protect

them was dispositive of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal, see

Molina-Diaz v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 568, 579 (4th Cir. 2025), we need not address Petitioners’

remaining arguments on those applications. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

To the extent Petitioners contend that the Board committed legal error when it

summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, they have not demonstrated legal

error in the Board’s decision. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 279-83

(4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we deny 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