Opinion
No. 19-1951
03-30-2020
JUAN ORTIZ ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Alfred Lincoln Robertson, Jr., ROBERTSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Aric A. Anderson, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Lincoln Robertson, Jr., ROBERTSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Aric A. Anderson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Juan Ortiz Alvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Alvarado's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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) (2018), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, we find Alvarado's due process claim to be unavailing because he fails to show that the alleged errors impacted the outcome of his case. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); accord Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-22 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Alvarado (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2019). 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