Case Name: Cris Fabiola CANALES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-26
Citations: 686 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 16-2160
Parties: Cris Fabiola CANALES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
Cris Fabiola CANALES-REYES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2160
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2017
Decided: April 26, 2017
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Meadow Platt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cris Fabiola Canales-Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits, the transcript of Canales-Reyes' merits hearing, and her supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency's 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 Canales-Reyes (B.I.A. Sept. 9, 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