Case Name: Claudia Jasmin GUEVARA-CARRANZA; C.M.M., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-17
Citations: 681 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 16-1487
Parties: Claudia Jasmin GUEVARA-CARRANZA; C.M.M., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 681
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Claudia Jasmin GUEVARA-CARRANZA; C.M.M., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-1487
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 28, 2017
Decided: March 17, 2017
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Maarja T. Luhtaru, Office.of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Claudia Jasmin Guevara-Carranza and her minor daughter, C.M.M., natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's denial of Guevara-Carranza's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of their merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. Wé 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 I.N.S. 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 Guevara-Carranza (B.I.A. Apr. 1, 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