Case Name: Yawa Mawuse Beatrice AGBENU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-10
Citations: 583 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 14-1088
Parties: Yawa Mawuse Beatrice AGBENU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
Yawa Mawuse Beatrice AGBENU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 10, 2014.
Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laura M.L. Maroldy, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yawa Mawuse Beatrice Agbenu, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including Agbenu's testimony, her documentary exhibits, and her supporting statements and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989); 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: Agbenu (B.I.A.Jan.3, 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.
. This case has returned to the court after we granted the Attorney General's unopposed motion to remand to the Board.
. Agbenu does not challenge the Board's finding that she waived review of the denial of relief under the CAT. Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004).