Case Name: Marta Ortiz GOMEZ, a/k/a Carmelina Coc Yat, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-08
Citations: 707 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 17-1624
Parties: Marta Ortiz GOMEZ, a/k/a Carmelina Coc Yat, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 791–792

Head Matter:
Marta Ortiz GOMEZ, a/k/a Carmelina Coc Yat, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-1624
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: January 8, 2018
Daniel Christmann, CHRISTMANNLE-GAL, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Peti tioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Annette M. Wietecha, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marta Ortiz Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ortiz Gomez'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. In re Ortiz Gomez (B.I.A. Apr. 14, 2017). 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