Opinion
No. 20-1051
10-20-2020
ROBIN AUGUSTO GARCIA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser, 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UNPUBLISHED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 GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robin Augusto Garcia-Martinez, 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 denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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 Board's decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review for denial of asylum); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review for denial of CAT protection).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Garcia-Martinez, (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 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