Opinion
No. 17-2144
05-16-2018
JOSE AMILCAR RAMOS CHACON, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Tamara L. Jezic, Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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UNPUBLISHED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 TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tamara L. Jezic, Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jose Amilcar Ramos Chacon, 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 applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Chacon's merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Chacon failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of protection under the CAT. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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