Court Opinion

ID: 9400329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 21:00:39.395709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.608480
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1850      Doc: 36         Filed: 06/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1850

        HUGO ALBERTO DE LA O and J.E.D.R.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Argued: March 10, 2023                                               Decided: June 6, 2023

        Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
        Maryland, for Petitioners. Kathryn McKinney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Suzanne L. Capriotti, LAW
        OFFICES OF SUZANNE L. CAPRIOTTI, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian
        Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anna Juarez, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-1850      Doc: 36         Filed: 06/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Hugo Alberto De La O and his son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) dismissing the

        appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum,

        withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

        We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Diaz de Gomez v.

        Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Under that standard, the agency’s factual

        findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

        to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Diaz de

        Gomez, 987 F.3d at 363. From our review of the record, the Board did not commit any

        legal error. And the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Stated

        differently, no reasonable factfinder “would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8

        U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Essohou v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 2006).

        So, we deny the petition to review the Board’s decision concerning the asylum, withholding

        of removal and CAT claims.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

                                                     2