Mark Thomas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A044-250-141. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999522293]. [14-1621]

Appeal: 14-1621

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1621

MARK NATHANIEL THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Thomas,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 20, 2015

Decided:

February 3, 2015

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn
M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1621

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mark

Nathaniel

Thomas,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from
the

Immigration

withholding

of

Judge’s
removal

Against Torture.
conclude

that

denial
and

of

his

protection

requests
under

for

the

asylum,

Convention

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

the

record

evidence

does

not

compel

a

ruling

contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8
U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

and

supports the Board’s decision.
U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

that

substantial

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board.
(B.I.A. May 28, 2014).

evidence

See In re: Thomas

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

2