Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01566/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosa Gloria Benavides-Castro
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1566

ROSA GLORIA BENAVIDES-CASTRO,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy R. Woods, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY R. WOODS, LLC, Baltimore, 

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

Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Anna Juarez, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

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

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1566 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rosa Gloria Benavides-Castro, 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 Benavides-Castro’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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. In re Benavides-Castro (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 

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: 16-1566 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/04/2017 Pg: 2 of 2