Court Opinion

ID: 9958071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 21:00:37.580451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:44.500183
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2269      Doc: 30         Filed: 04/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2269

        SALVADOR ANTONIO JAVITT BRICENO,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 16, 2024                                      Decided: April 5, 2024

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

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Vincent Rivas-Flores, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner.
        Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
        Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2269         Doc: 30     Filed: 04/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Salvador Antonio Javitt Briceno, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal

        from the Immigration Judge’s decision finding Javitt Briceno removable and denying his

        request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly

        reviewed the record, including the transcript of Javitt Briceno’s merits hearing and all

        supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling

        contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that

        substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113,

        124 (4th Cir. 2007).

              Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Javitt Briceno (B.I.A.

        Nov. 30, 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