Saul Posada-Martinez v. Pamela Bondi

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1378

SAUL ANTONIO POSADA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 16, 2025 Decided: May 12, 2025

Before WYNN, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Reuben S. Kerben, KERBEN LAW FIRM, P.C., Kew Gardens, New York, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Katie E. Rourke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Saul Antonio Posada-Martinez, 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 asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Posada-Martinez challenges the finding that he was convicted of a per se particularly serious crime, arguing that his Virginia malicious wounding conviction is not categorically a crime of violence because it is indivisible and overbroad. The Board held, however, that Posada-Martinez waived this issue by failing to raise it before the IJ. Upon review, we conclude that Posada-Martinez failed to administratively exhaust his claim. As the Attorney General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we decline to consider it. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 413, 419 (2023); Trejo Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213-14 (4th Cir. 2023).

Accordingly, we deny the motion for stay of removal and the petition for review.

In re Posada-Martinez (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 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