Elmer Jerez Bojorquez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-389-725. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999016217].. [12-1697]

Appeal: 12-1697

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1697

ELMER
FRANCISCO
Bohorquez,

JEREZ

BOJORQUEZ,

a/k/a

Jerez

Elmer

Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

December 21, 2012

Decided:

January 7, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert
Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1697

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Elmer Francisco Jerez Bojorquez, a native and citizen
of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’

(“Board”)

order

dismissing

his

appeal

of

the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Bojorquez’s application
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have thoroughly examined the record

and deny the petition for review.
When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must
uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible
for withholding of removal unless the Board’s determination is
“‘manifestly

contrary

discretion.’”

Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir.

2010)

(quoting

8

to

U.S.C.

§

law

and

1252(b)(4)(D)

an

abuse

(2006)).

of

Legal

questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while
the

Board’s

reasonable
contrary.”

factual

adjudicator

findings
would

“are

be

conclusive

compelled

to

unless

decide

to

any
the

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Crespin-Valladares

v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011).

Consequently, the

Board’s determination regarding eligibility for withholding of
removal

will

be

affirmed

if

it

is

supported

evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
2

by

substantial

INS v. Elias-

Appeal: 12-1697

Doc: 28

Filed: 01/07/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

An alien is eligible for withholding of removal if he
shows that, if he was returned to his native country, “it is
more

likely

than

not

that

or

freedom

in

opinion.’”

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
8

social

particular

U.S.C.

alteration omitted).

§

religion,
group,

be

membership

(quoting

race,

would

because
a

[his]

‘life

threatened

2004)

of

[his]

1231(b)(3)(A)

nationality,
or

(2006))

political

(internal

Here, our review of the record convinces

us that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion
that

the

Guatemala-related

incidents

marshaled

by

Bojorquez

failed to establish by a preponderance that he would be harmed
if returned to El Salvador.

We likewise find without merit

Bojorquez’s challenge to the denial of his CAT claim.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

we

deny

argument

adequately

the

petition

because

presented

in

the
the

for
facts

review.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3