Case Name: Heydi Lorena RECINOS-ECHEVERRIA; D.A.D., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-08
Citations: 670 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 16-1328
Parties: Heydi Lorena RECINOS-ECHEVERRIA; D.A.D., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Heydi Lorena RECINOS-ECHEVERRIA; D.A.D., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-1328
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 28, 2016
Decided: November 8, 2016
Timothy W. Davis, Law Office of Timothy W. Davis, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Andrew M. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Heydi Lorena Recinos-Echeverria and her minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's denial of Recinos-Echeverria's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Recinos-Echeverria'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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Recinos-Echeverria (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 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