Opinion
22-1540
04-25-2023
ELIZABETH CASTRO-DE GARCIA; A.E.G.C.; MAURO GARCIA-TORRES, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Andrew Barreto, Goren & Barreto, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 14, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Andrew Barreto, Goren & Barreto, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners.
Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Elizabeth Castro-De Garcia, Mauro Garcia-Torres, and their minor child, 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 denial of 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 for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Castro-De Garcia (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2022). We deny the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and 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