Case Name: Mark Nathaniel THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Thomas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-03
Citations: 592 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 14-1621
Parties: Mark Nathaniel THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Thomas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
Mark Nathaniel THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Thomas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1621.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 20, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 3, 2015.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Nathaniel Thomas, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Thomas (B.I.A. May 28, 2014). 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.