USCA4 Appeal: 24-1702 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1702

KOFFI ADOUGOU, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 16, 2025 Decided: April 10, 2025

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Koffi Adougou, Petitioner Pro Se. Karen L. Melnik, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-1702 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/10/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Koffi Adougou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and ordering him removed from the United States based on his aggravated felony conviction. Adougou challenges the denial of CAT protection and seeks to explain the circumstances of his conviction. However, the Board held that Adougou waived the denial of CAT protection by failing, on appeal, to meaningfully challenge the IJ’s findings and found that Adougou did not challenge his conviction or sentence. As Adougou failed to administratively exhaust his claims, and the Attorney General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we decline to consider them.

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 petition for review. In re Adougou (B.I.A. June 28, 2024).

We deny as moot the Attorney General’s motions for summary disposition and to suspend the briefing schedule and 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