Court Opinion

ID: 9372114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:00:23.520034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.269154
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1792      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1792

        ROSIBEL MARTINEZ; A.D.C.C.M.; Y.S.C.M.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: January 27, 2023                                  Decided: February 16, 2023

        Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James D. Brousseau, BROUSSEAU & LEE, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia,
        for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zoe J.
        Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen L. Melnik, Senior Trial 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1792      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rosibel Martinez and her two daughters, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition

        for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal

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

        of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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