Opinion
22-1318
01-19-2023
MILTON ENRIQUE BENITEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director, Brett F. Kinney, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 17, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director, Brett F. Kinney, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Milton Enrique Benitez-Lopez, 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 Benitez-Lopez's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Upon review of the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments pressed in this court, we are satisfied that the record 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. In re Benitez-Lopez (B.I.A. Mar. 1, 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