Case Name: Reine Monique Thiemele WODIE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-30
Citations: 616 F. App'x 119
Docket Number: No. 15-1068
Parties: Reine Monique Thiemele WODIE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 119–119

Head Matter:
Reine Monique Thiemele WODIE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2015.
Joshua Bardavid, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Scott M. Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reine Monique Thiemele Wodie, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of Wodie's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Wodie's merits hearing, her asylum application, and all supporting evidence. We 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 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: Wodie (B.I.A. Dec. 19, 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.