Opinion
21-2212
12-06-2022
BRIGIDA ROMERO-VASQUEZ; O.E.O.R., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Victor E. Legorreta, Michael E. Rosado, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ROSADO, P.C., Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Andrew Oliveira, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 8, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Victor E. Legorreta, Michael E. Rosado, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ROSADO, P.C., Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioners.
Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Andrew Oliveira, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Brigida Romero-Vasquez and her minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision denying their 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 Romero-Vasquez (B.I.A. Sept. 27, 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.