Jorge Martinez-Ortiz v. Pamela Bondi

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1296 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/10/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1296 JORGE MARIO MARTINEZ-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 2, 2025 Decided: October 10, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Jorge E. Artieda, JORGE E. ARTIEDA LAW OFFICE P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1296 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/10/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Jorge Mario Martinez-Ortiz, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board held that Martinez-Ortiz waived review of independently dispositive rulings regarding his request for asylum and withholding of removal, and waived review of his entire CAT claim. Upon review, we agree. As the Attorney General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we decline to review the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. * 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). In addition, Martinez-Ortiz’s procedural due process claim alleging errors in the hearing transcript was not exhausted before the Board, which could have addressed and remedied the issue. See Kurfees v. INS, 275 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2001). Because the Attorney General has also invoked § 1252(d)(1) with respect to this claim, we deny review. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Martinez-Ortiz (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * For this reason, we need not address Martinez-Ortiz’s other arguments challenging the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (recognizing that courts of appeal are generally not required to make findings on “issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach”). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1296 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/10/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3