Case Name: Maria Leticia Guzman PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-20
Citations: 593 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 14-1871
Parties: Maria Leticia Guzman PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
Maria Leticia Guzman PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1871.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 10, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 20, 2015.
Hugo Cesar Castro, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Kristofer R. McDonald, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maria Leticia Guzman Pineda, 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 application for cancellation of removal.
We review legal issues de novo, "affording appropriate deference to the [Board]'s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations." Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir.2008). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the Board's factual findings under the substantial evidence 'rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir.2008).
Upon review, we agree that Pineda's conviction for forgery of a public record was a crime involving moral turpitude, which rendered her ineligible for cancellation of removal. We therefore uphold the agency's decision and deny the petition for •review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Pineda (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2014). 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.