Case Name: Mamoudou DIALLO; Aissata L. Diallo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-18
Citations: 561 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 13-2463
Parties: Mamoudou DIALLO; Aissata L. Diallo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 254–254

Head Matter:
Mamoudou DIALLO; Aissata L. Diallo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-2463.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2014.
Decided: March 18, 2014.
Mamoudou Diallo, Aissata L. Diallo, Petitioners Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mamoudou Diallo and his wife, Aissata Lamarana Diallo, natives and citizens of Guinea, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the documents submitted with the motion to reopen and the supporting affidavits. 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). We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir.2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.