Court Opinion

ID: 9961902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:47.128035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:16.319184
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1894      Doc: 35         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1894

        EDWIN GIRON-CASTILLO,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Evan J. Law, GAYHEART & WILLIS, P.C., Culpeper, Virginia, for
        Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sarah A. Byrd,
        Senior Litigation Counsel, Allison Frayer, Senior Attorney, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1894      Doc: 35          Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Edwin Giron-Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an

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

        judge’s decision denying Giron-Castillo’s applications for asylum and withholding of

        removal. ∗ We deny the petition for review.

               We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits

        hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments raised on appeal in

        conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the record

        evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8

        U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s

        dispositive ruling, affirmed by the Board, that Giron-Castillo failed to establish the

        requisite nexus between the claimed protected ground and the asserted past persecution or

        the feared future persecution, see Toledo-Vasquez v. Garland, 27 F.4th 281, 287-91 (4th

        Cir. 2022) (reiterating that not every threat that relates to a noncitizen’s “family member is

        made on account of family ties” and “that the nexus requirement is primarily about the

        persecutor’s reasons for targeting an individual” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see

        also Madrid-Montoya v. Garland, 52 F.4th 175, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2022) (observing that, “if

        the record plausibly could support two results: the one the [agency] chose and the one [the

               ∗
                 We observe that Giron-Castillo has forfeited review of the denial of relief under
        the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise that issue in his brief in this court. See
        Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023)
        (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in
        the party’s briefs).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1894         Doc: 35      Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        petitioner] advances,” this court “must defer to the agency” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). See generally Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (recognizing the established principle that “the asylum statute was not intended as a

        panacea for the numerous personal altercations that invariably characterize economic and

        social relationships” and distinguishing the type of personally motivated conflicts that

        generally “fall[ ] outside the scope of asylum protection” (brackets and internal quotation

        marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Giron-Castillo (B.I.A. July

        28, 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

                                                    3