Case Name: Sebastian Bustos AYON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-04
Citations: 558 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 13-1883
Parties: Sebastian Bustos AYON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Sebastian Bustos AYON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1883.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2014.
Decided: March 4, 2014.
Daniel G. Petitioner Deangelis, Department Anna, Anna & Anna, P.C., Media, Pennsylvania, for. Stuart F. Delery, Greg D. Mack, Kathryn L. Office of Immigration Litigation, United States of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sebastian Bustos Ayon, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ayon's merits hearing, and his supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board'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 finding that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. See In re: Ayon (B.I.A. June 18, 2013). 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.