Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02117/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Edwin Antonio Miranda-Mendez
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2117

EDWIN ANTONIO MIRANDA-MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: March 15, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2117 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Edwin Antonio Miranda-Mendez, 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 asylum and 

withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative 

record, including the transcript of Miranda-Mendez’s merits 

hearing, the applications for relief, 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. See INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We accordingly deny 

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re: Miranda-Mendez (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2015). 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

Appeal: 15-2117 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2