Court Opinion

ID: 9899551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:01:07.943056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:39.414830
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2213      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2213

        AMADA MARLENE CRESPO DE CASTRO; D.M.C.C.; N.L.C.C.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: September 19, 2023                               Decided: November 15, 2023

        Before AGEE, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
        Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino,
        Nancy E. Friedman, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2213         Doc: 22      Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Amada Marlene Crespo de Castro and her minor children, natives and citizens of El

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

        dismissing Crespo de Castro’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her

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

        Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and Crespo de Castro’s claims

        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. In re Crespo de Castro (B.I.A. Nov. 7,

        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