Case Name: Rosa Del Carmen AREVALO DE ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-02
Citations: 671 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 16-1132
Parties: Rosa Del Carmen AREVALO DE ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 116–116

Head Matter:
Rosa Del Carmen AREVALO DE ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-1132
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 20, 2016
Decided: December 2, 2016
Arnedo S. Valera, Law Offices of Valera & Associates, Fairfáx, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiori-no, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jenny C. Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rosa del Carmen Arevalo de Arriola, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's denial of her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Arevalo de Arriola's merits hearing 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 Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Arevalo de Arriola (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 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