Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01132/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosa del Carmen Arevalo de Arriola
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1132

ROSA DEL CARMEN AREVALO DE ARRIOLA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016

Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Jenny C. Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1132 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rosa del Carmen Arevalo de Arriola, 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 withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We 

have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of 

Arevalo de Arriola’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 Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 

359 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. In re Arevalo de Arriola (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 

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

Appeal: 16-1132 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 2