Case Name: Marto FAHARDO, a/k/a Marto Doe, a/k/a Marto Fajardo, a/k/a Marto Aroldo Diaz Fajardo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-13
Citations: 697 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 17-1121
Parties: Marto FAHARDO, a/k/a Marto Doe, a/k/a Marto Fajardo, a/k/a Marto Aroldo Diaz Fajardo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Marto FAHARDO, a/k/a Marto Doe, a/k/a Marto Fajardo, a/k/a Marto Aroldo Diaz Fajardo, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-1121
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 29, 2017
Decided: September 13, 2017
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Rosanne M. Perry, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marto Fahardo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Fahardo'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 Fahardo (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 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
The Board issued this order after this court granted the Attorney General's unopposed motion to remand Fahardo's case to the Board for further consideration.