Court Opinion

ID: 9353080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 21:00:27.394511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:44.903828
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1371      Doc: 26         Filed: 01/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1371

        PATRICIA LISSET LOPEZ DE GUADRON,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 28, 2022                                      Decided: January 9, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Evan J. Law, GAYHEART & WILLIS, P.C., Culpeper, Virginia, for
        Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
        Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1371      Doc: 26         Filed: 01/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Patricia Lisset Lopez de Guadron, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming

        the immigration judge’s decision and dismissing her appeal. 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. 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