Jacinta Fon v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1129 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1129 JACINTA NEH FON, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brendan P. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jacinta Neh Fon, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) Judge’s denial dismissing of her her appeal requests for from the asylum, Immigration withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Fon first challenges the agency’s determination that her asylum application is time-barred, qualified for asylum. and contends that she See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2015). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Fon has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. See 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to Fon’s asylum claim. Fon next contends that the agency erred in finding that she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under thoroughly reviewed evidence does not the Convention the record compel a Against and ruling Torture. conclude that contrary to We the any have record of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence See Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. supports the Board’s decision. Accordingly, we deny the petition 2 for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Fon (B.I.A. Jan. 9, 2015). We therefore dismiss in part and deny 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
