Case ID: f-appx_705/html/0177-01.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

Samuel Rodrigo TZIC-CHICAJ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 17-1535
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 28, 2017
    Decided: November 30, 2017
    Jessica L. Yañez, YÁÑEZ IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christina P. Greer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Rodrigo Tzic-Chicaj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Tzic-Chicaj’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative , factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Tzic-Chicaj failed to establish a nexus between past persecution and fear of future persecution and a protected ground and that he failed to establish eligibility for protection under the CAT. See INS 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 Tzic-Chicaj (B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2017). 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