Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Pedro Antonio MARTINEZ-VALLE, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Pedro Antonio Martinez-Valle, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Martinez-Valle's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We 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), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Martinez-Valle (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2019). We deny the Attorney General's motion to dismiss in part as moot and 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. While Martinez-Valle argues that he qualified for asylum, he failed to exhaust his asylum claim before the Board and fails to challenge the Board's conclusion that he waived the asylum claim in his administrative appeal. Accordingly, his asylum claim is both unexhausted and abandoned on appeal. See Cabrera v. Barr, 930 F.3d 627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Likewise, he has not raised any issues in his opening brief concerning the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. He has thus abandoned any challenge to the denial of that relief. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (except in rare cases, failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of issue).
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-2326
Decided: August 26, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)