Court Opinion

ID: 9556853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 21:00:36.510985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:14.452038
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725      Doc: 23         Filed: 08/17/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1725

        SARAHI ALEJANDRA CALDERON-CARDOZA; C.J.M.C.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: March 14, 2023                                         Decided: August 17, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Rebekah G. Grafton, FAY GRAFTON NUNEZ, PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation,
        Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725         Doc: 23     Filed: 08/17/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Sarahi Alejandra Calderon-Cardoza and her minor child, natives and citizens of

        Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

        dismissing Calderon-Cardoza’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her

        applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

        Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the

        evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of 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. In re Calderon-Cardoza (B.I.A. June 21,

        2022). 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