Case Name: Marvin Estuardo LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-21
Citations: 693 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 16-2457
Parties: Marvin Estuardo LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
Marvin Estuardo LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2457
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2017
Decided: July 21, 2017
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ann M. Welhaf, Lindsay Donahue, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Estuardo Lopez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of Lopez-Mendoza's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lopez-Mendoza's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency's factual findings, see 8 U.S.G. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the agency's decision, 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. See In re Lopez-Mendoza (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 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