Opinion
No. 19-1912
09-17-2020
VANESSA CAROLINA ESCOBAR-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Devon R. Senges, DUMMIT FRADIN, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen A. Giuffreda, Trial Attorney, 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UNPUBLISHED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 WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Devon R. Senges, DUMMIT FRADIN, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen A. Giuffreda, Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vanessa Carolina Escobar-Perez (Escobar), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Escobar's appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
Specifically, upon review of the certified administrative record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and Escobar's supporting materials, 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 denial of the forms of relief sought by Escobar, 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. See In re Escobar-Perez (B.I.A. July 26, 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