Court Opinion

ID: 9948360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 21:01:08.954992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:29.434861
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2004      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2004

        MARISOL ARACELY ARIAS ALVARADO; HERBERT ALEXANDER MEJIA
        ARIAS,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 8, 2024                                       Decided: March 5, 2024

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Benjamin R. Winograd, IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE APPELLATE
        CENTER, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy
        Assistant Attorney General, David J. Schor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2004      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Marisol Aracely Arias Alvarado (“Arias Alvarado”) and her son, natives and

        citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

        (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Arias

        Alvarado’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

        Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We deny the petition for review.

               We will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling

        that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.

        Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). “The agency decision that an alien is not

        eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of

        discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

        § 1252(b)(4)(D)). “Where, as here, the [Board] adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision but

        gives additional reasons for doing so, we review both opinions.” Baharon v. Holder, 588

        F.3d 228, 231 (4th Cir. 2009).

               We have reviewed the record and the Petitioners’ claims and conclude that the

        evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings. 8

        U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We further conclude that the Board’s review of the IJ’s finding

        that Arias Alvarado did not show that her fear of persecution if she returns to El Salvador

               1
                Arias Alvarado’s son was a derivative asylum applicant.              See 8 U.S.C.
        § 1158(b)(3).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2004      Doc: 30         Filed: 03/05/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        was objectively reasonable was not manifestly contrary to law. 2 Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for review.    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
                 The Petitioners do not challenge the finding that the threats were not evidence of
        past persecution. Nor do they challenge the denial of protection under the CAT. Thus,
        those issues are waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912
        F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that failure to address the denial of CAT relief in the
        brief waives review of that issue).

                                                     3