Court Opinion

ID: 9940649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:01:43.233651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:27.727134
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1374      Doc: 31         Filed: 02/13/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1374

        MAXIMILIANO MARTINEZ CRUZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 6, 2024                                  Decided: February 13, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, SHERMAN-STOLTZ LAW GROUP, PLLC,
        Gum Spring, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Assistant Director, A. Ashley Arthur, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1374         Doc: 31      Filed: 02/13/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Maximiliano Martinez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

        an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

        judge’s decision denying Martinez Cruz’s application for deferral of removal under the

        Convention Against Torture. Upon review of the record, including the transcript of

        Martinez Cruz’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and consideration of the

        parties’ arguments in conjunction with the relevant authorities, we conclude that the record

        evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the immigration judge’s factual

        findings, as affirmed by the Board, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial

        evidence supports the denial of relief, see Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th

        Cir. 2023). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the

        Board. See In re Martinez Cruz (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2023).

               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