Claudia Rossana Matute-Juarez v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1505
CLAUDIA ROSSANA MATUTE-JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of An Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 29, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025
Before KING, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Robert J. Harris, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director,
Abigail E. Leach, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Claudia Rossana Matute-Juarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to
reconsider.* We have reviewed the administrative record and Matute-Juarez’s claims and
find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision because Matute-Juarez did not
meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that her “persecution [was not]
perpetrated by an organization that her home country’s government is unable or unwilling
to control.” Arita-Deras v. Williamson, 990 F.3d 350, 356-57 (4th Cir. 2021); see Williams
v. Garland, 59 F.4th 620, 632 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Accordingly,
we deny 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 DENIED
* We exercise our discretion to excuse Matute-Juarez’s waiver of review of whether
the Board abused its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider. Manning v. Caldwell,
930 F.3d 264, 271 (4th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Because Respondent has briefed the merits
of this issue, it will not be prejudiced by our review. Curry v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal
Co., 67 F.3d 517, 522 n.8 (4th Cir. 1995).

-- 2 of 2 --