Opinion
22-1255
01-13-2023
MARIA ANTONIA MEJIA-CANTARERO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Ofelia L. Calderon, Briana Carlson, CALDERON SEGUIN PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 28, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Ofelia L. Calderon, Briana Carlson, CALDERON SEGUIN PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Maria Antonia Mejia-Cantarero, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Mejia-Cantarero'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), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Mejia-Cantarero (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 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