Case Name: Mauricio Ernesto HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-02
Citations: 691 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 16-2027
Parties: Mauricio Ernesto HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 116–116

Head Matter:
Mauricio Ernesto HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2027
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: June 2, 2017
William J.-Vasquez, VASQUEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Wendy Benner-Leon, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mauricio Ernesto Hernandez-Mancilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 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 thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Hernandez-Mancilla's merits hearing before the immigration court 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 Hernandez-Mancilla (B.I.A. Aug. 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