Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0208-01.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

Erika Griselda RIVERA-SOLORZANO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-1924
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 16, 2017
    Decided: March 22, 2017
    Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Alexander J. Lutz, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erika Griselda Rivera-Solorzano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, .petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Rivera-Solorzano’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Rivera-Solorzano (B.I.A. July 18, 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 
      
       Rivera-Solorzano does not raise any challenges to the agency’s denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We would lack jurisdiction over any such claims on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).