Opinion
22-1932
08-16-2023
IRIS BANESSA VASQUEZ-RIVERA; M.E.V.V.; A.V.V.V., 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 M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Edward E. Wiggers, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica Newman, Law Clerk, A. Ashley Arthur, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 18, 2023
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 M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Edward E. Wiggers, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jessica Newman, Law Clerk, A. Ashley Arthur, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Iris Banessa Vasquez-Rivera and her two minor children, M.E.V.V. and A.V.V.V., natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination and the denial of relief, see Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Vasquez-Rivera (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 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