Juan Ramon Mejia-Moran; J.j.m.a. v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1313
JUAN RAMON MEJIA-MORAN; J.J.M.A.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 30, 2025 Decided: July 10, 2025
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for
Appellant. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad,
Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Juan Ramon Mejia-Moran and his minor son, J.J.M.A. (together, “Petitioners”),
both natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have reviewed the record and Petitioners’ claims and conclude that the
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any administrative findings on the asylum
and withholding of removal applications, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief, see I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992).* Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Mejia-Moran (B.I.A. Mar.
14, 2023). 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
* Petitioners also briefly challenges the denial of protection under CAT, a claim they
failed to exhaust before the Board. Because the Attorney General has properly invoked the
exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we decline to consider
Petitioners’ CAT argument. 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).

-- 2 of 2 --