Solomon Degu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

583 F. App'x 214
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 24, 2014
Docket14-1066
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 583 F. App'x 214 (Solomon Degu v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Solomon Degu v. Eric Holder, Jr., 583 F. App'x 214 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Solomon Aseffa Degu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, 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 asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part. With regard to the procedural due process claims raised by Degu, we note that such claims were reviewable by the Board. Because Degu failed to properly exhaust the claims before the Board prior to raising them before this court, we lack jurisdiction to review them. * See Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir.1990).

*215 We therefore 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 AND DISMISSED IN PART.

*

Degu claims that he was unable to exhaust these claims on account of ineffective assistance of counsel. To raise such a claim, however, Degu must file a motion to reopen with the Board pursuant to Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A.1988).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
583 F. App'x 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-degu-v-eric-holder-jr-ca4-2014.