Jose Soloman-Rodriguez v. Pamela Bondi

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1236 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1236 JOSE SOLOMAN-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order for the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025 Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sharon M. Clay, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1236 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jose Soloman-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings based on Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), and upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). First, upon review, we uphold the denial of the motion to terminate. See Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823-24 (4th Cir. 2020). Next, regarding withholding of removal, the Board held that Soloman-Rodriguez waived review of the IJ’s independently dispositive finding that he failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. As Soloman-Rodriguez failed to raise this dispositive ground before the Board, and the Attorney General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we decline to consider it. 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). Finally, turning to CAT protection, 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 agency’s decision, see Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Soloman-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2024). 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 2