Opinion
21-1205
02-25-2022
MARVIN ANIBAL MURRILLO GUARDADO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado, Petitioner Pro Se. Brian Boynton, Acting Attorney General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: January 18, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado, Petitioner Pro Se.
Brian Boynton, Acting Attorney General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 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). Because the Board's finding that Guardado's proposed particular social group is not cognizable is dispositive on the issue of whether Guardado is entitled to withholding of removal, it is unnecessary for this court to review Guardado's other issues relating to that form of relief from removal. We further find that the denial of protection under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence. Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 972 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Guardado (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2021). 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.