USCA4 Appeal: 24-1505 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1505 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 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).