Opinion
No. 17-2060
05-08-2018
REYES GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, a/k/a Reyes Gonzalez-Martinez; LUISA VILLAGOMEZ-CANSINO, a/k/a Luisa via Gomez Cancino; A.G-V., a/k/a A.G.vG., a minor, Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, John B. Holt, 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UNPUBLISHED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 WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, John B. Holt, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reyes Gonzalez Martinez and his wife and child, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of Gonzalez Martinez's requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Gonzalez Martinez's 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) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, 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 Gonzalez Martinez (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2017). 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