Opinion
22-1529
03-20-2023
ROSAURA GUADALUPE BONILLA-MINERO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Mary Lynn A. Tedesco, TEDESCO LEGAL, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 16, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Mary Lynn A. Tedesco, TEDESCO LEGAL, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner.
Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Rosaura Guadalupe Bonilla-Minero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's oral decision denying Bonilla-Minero's applications for asylum and withholding of removal.[*] Upon review of the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments raised 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 the agency did not err in concluding that Bonilla-Minero's advanced particular social group was not cognizable, see Morales v. Garland, 51 F.4th 553, 557-58 (4th Cir. 2022) (discussing cognizability requirements). Nor does the record show that the Board abused its discretion in not referring Bonilla-Minero's administrative appeal to a three-member panel. See Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 (4th Cir. 2009) (providing standard of review for this issue).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Bonilla-Minero (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 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
[*] Bonilla-Minero does not challenge the denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner's failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).