Court Opinion

ID: 9393717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 21:01:52.778926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.102887
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1691      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1691

        WILLIAM ANTONIO CHOTO-LAZO,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 28, 2023                                         Decided: May 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner.
        Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin R. Markel, Senior
        Litigation Counsel, Paul Fiorino, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1691      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Antonio Choto-Lazo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

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

        from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his requests 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 for the reasons stated by the

        Board. See In re Choto-Lazo (B.I.A. June 3, 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