Opinion
21-2373
09-06-2022
PAULINA REYES-RODRIGUEZ; K.V.R., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Ivan Yacub, Andre Matias, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 26, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Ivan Yacub, Andre Matias, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Paulina Reyes-Rodriguez (Reyes) and her minor daughter, K.V.R. (collectively, "Petitioners"), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.[*] We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments pressed on appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We first conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the relevant factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's dispositive rulings, which the Board affirmed. As to the proffered legal issues, which we review de novo, see Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir. 2021), we discern no error in the agency's conclusions that Reyes' (a) alleged persecutors did not levy a "plain and unambiguous" death threat against her that would qualify as past persecution, Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020); and (b) claimed fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances of this case, see, e.g., Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 398 (4th Cir. 2010) (observing that evidence establishing that alleged persecutors had not harmed similarly situated family members living in applicant's home country "fatally undermines" objective reasonableness of applicant's feared future persecution); see also, e.g., Perez-Morales v. Barr, 781 Fed.Appx. 192, 198 (4th Cir. 2019) (No. 18-1617) (argued but unpublished) (recognizing that, where alleged death threats were levied against applicant's whole family, the fact that applicant's siblings were unharmed in his home country was relevant to future persecution analysis). Finally, we conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes' application for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) (2022). Accord Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540, 550 (8th Cir. 2009) (providing standard of review for the denial of humanitarian asylum).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Reyes-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 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.
[*]Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner's failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).