Court Opinion

ID: 9831340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:50.154643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.815298
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1321      Doc: 27         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1321

        KATIA CAROLINA VARGAS ANARIBA; K.A.M.V.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Corey L. Farrell, Acting Senior Litigation
        Counsel, Jaclyn G. Hagner, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1321      Doc: 27         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Katia Carolina Vargas Anariba and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of

        Honduras, petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

        (“Board”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

        under the Convention Against Torture.        After thoroughly reviewing the record, we

        conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual

        findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of

        relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 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

                                                     2