Claudia Barrios De Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-959-081,A095-716-730. Copies to all parties and the agency. [998802084]. [11-1526]

Appeal: 11-1526

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/05/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1526
CLAUDIA YESENIA BARRIOS DE MARTINEZ; D.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:

February 15, 2012

Decided:

March 5, 2012

Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, California, for Petitioners.
Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Stefanie A. Svoren, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1526

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/05/2012

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Claudia Yesenia Barrios de Martinez, and her son, D.M.
(collectively Petitioners), natives and citizens of El Salvador,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

denial

dismissing
of

their

their

appeal

requests

for

from

the

asylum,

immigration

withholding

of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Barrios de Martinez is the primary applicant for asylum and the
claims of her son are derivative of her application.

See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2011).

For

the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

INS v. Elias-

Administrative findings of

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.
reviewed
[Board]’s

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
de

novo,

“affording

interpretation

of

appropriate

the

Legal issues are
deference

[Immigration

and

to

the

Nationality

Act] and any attendant regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,

517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

This court will reverse

the

.

Board

only

if

“the

evidence

.

.

presented

was

so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
2

Appeal: 11-1526

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/05/2012

requisite fear of persecution.”

Page: 3 of 4

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at

483-84; see also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002).

Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not

eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’”

Marynenka v. Holder, 592

F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding.
We further conclude that Barrios de Martinez failed to establish
that

she

was

targeted

by

Mara

account of a protected ground.
440, 447 (4th Cir. 2011).

Salvatrucha

gang

members

on

See Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d

We therefore uphold the denial of her

requests for asylum and withholding of removal.

See Camara v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum —
even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an
applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Additionally,
denial

of

her

Against Torture.

request

Barrios
for

de

Martinez

protection

under

challenges
the

the

Convention

To qualify for such protection, a petitioner

bears the burden of proof of showing “it is more likely than not
that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
3

Appeal: 11-1526

Document: 31

Date Filed: 03/05/2012

country of removal.”

Page: 4 of 4

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011).

Based on

our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the denial of her request for relief.
Gonzales,

495

F.3d

113,

124

(4th

Cir.

2007)

See Dankam v.
(setting

forth

standard of review).
We
dispense

therefore

with

oral

deny

argument

the

petition

because

the

for

review.*

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

*

Although it appears that the immigration judge completed
the proceedings in Atlanta, Georgia, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2)
(2006), we decline to exercise our inherent authority to
transfer the case to the Eleventh Circuit as we find it would
not be in the interest of justice to do so.
See Sorcia v.
Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 122-24 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 776 (2011). Additionally, we have reviewed the Petitioners’
due process claim, and find that Petitioners fail to demonstrate
the requisite prejudice. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256
(4th Cir. 2008); Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320.

4