Full text
Oscar Ceballos-Lopez v. Merrick Garland
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1469
OSCAR A. CEBALLOS-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 22, 2021 Decided: July 6, 2021 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Acting Assistant Director, Sarah L. Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar A. Ceballos-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). For the reasons below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Ceballos-Lopez appeals the Immigration Judge’s finding that he didn’t suffer past persecution, but he didn’t raise that issue before the Board. We accordingly dismiss this portion of his petition. See Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[U]nder 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), an alien’s failure to dispute an issue on appeal to the [Board] constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies that bars judicial review.”).
With respect to Ceballos-Lopez’s application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, we have reviewed the administrative 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), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to this claim, for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Ceballos-Lopez (B.I.A. Mar. 17, 2020).
We further conclude that Ceballos-Lopez has waived review of the dispositive finding that he didn’t meet his burden of showing that public officials would consent to or acquiesce in his torture to qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See *3 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248–49 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that an issue not raised in the opening brief is abandoned and that an appellant can’t remedy the situation by raising the issue in the reply brief).
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.