Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0233-02.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

Josue Mirrain DE LA CRUZ-SIANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-1663
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2017
    Decided: March 14, 2017
    
      Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Juria L. Jones, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josué Mirrain De La Cruz-Siana (“Sia-na”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Siana’s merits hearing, his application for relief from removal, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision affirming and adopting the Immigration Judge’s reasoning, see I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Nor do we discern any legal error in the agency’s rejection of the proposed social group advanced by Siana. See Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 165-67 (4th Cir. 2012); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 447 (4th Cir. 2011); In re S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 584-88 (B.I.A. 2008); In re E-A-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 591, 594-96 (B.I.A. 2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re De La Cruz-Siana (B.I.A. May 19, 2016). 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