Saul Antonio Posada-Martinez v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1378
SAUL ANTONIO POSADA-MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 16, 2025 Decided: May 12, 2025
Before WYNN, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Reuben S. Kerben, KERBEN LAW FIRM, P.C., Kew Gardens, New York,
for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Katie E. Rourke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Saul Antonio Posada-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, statutory
withholding of removal, and withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Posada-Martinez challenges the finding that he
was convicted of a per se particularly serious crime, arguing that his Virginia malicious
wounding conviction is not categorically a crime of violence because it is indivisible and
overbroad. The Board held, however, that Posada-Martinez waived this issue by failing to
raise it before the IJ. Upon review, we conclude that Posada-Martinez failed to
administratively exhaust his claim. As 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).
Accordingly, we deny the motion for stay of removal and the petition for review.
In re Posada-Martinez (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 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 of 2 --