Case ID: f-appx_549/html/0198-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Candelario LARA, a/k/a Lara Candelario, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-1639.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2013.
    Decided: Dec. 31, 2013.
    Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Candelario Lara, 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 denial of his requests for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lara’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the Board’s dismissal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 88 (1992). We further conclude that Lara was statutorily ineligible for TPS relief as a result of his two misdemeanor convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B). We find no merit to his claim that he is eligible for an exception because the two convictions arose from a single scheme of criminal conduct.

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.