Opinion
22-1188
06-08-2023
JUAN ANGEL HERNANDEZ-BENITEZ; A.A.H.D, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Kevin P. Dougherty, Law Firm of Ruiz Dougherty, Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 14, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Kevin P. Dougherty, Law Firm of Ruiz Dougherty, Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Juan Angel Hernandez-Benitez and his minor child, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing Hernandez-Benitez's appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, 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 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 Hernandez-Benitez (B.I.A. Jan. 25, 2022). 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.