Maria Guzman Pineda v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-416-886. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999532025]. [14-1871]

Appeal: 14-1871

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1871

MARIA LETICIA GUZMAN PINEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

February 10, 2015

Decided:

February 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugo Cesar Castro, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Joyce
R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay,
Assistant Director, Kristofer R. McDonald, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1871

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Maria Leticia Guzman Pineda, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration

Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

her

appeal

from

the

immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation
of removal.
We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration
and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.”
Lin

v.

Mukasey,

Administrative

517

F.3d

findings

of

685,
fact

691-92
are

(4th

Li Fang

Cir.

conclusive

2008).

unless

any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).

We defer to the

Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule.
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).
Upon
forgery

of

turpitude,
removal.

a

review,
public

which

we

agree

record

rendered

her

that

was

a

Pineda’s
crime

ineligible

for

conviction
involving

moral

cancellation

of

We therefore uphold the agency’s decision and deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
re:

for

Pineda

(B.I.A.

Aug.

7,

2014).

We

dispense

See In

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 14-1871

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3