Iana Rata v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-105-221,A205-105-222 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999634799]. [14-2338]

Appeal: 14-2338

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2338

IANA RATA; ARA ARARAT TIRATSVYAN,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

July 20, 2015

Decided:

August 5, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Nancy E. Friedman,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2338

Doc: 25

Filed: 08/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Iana

Rata,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Moldova,

and

her

husband, derivative beneficiary Ara A. Tiratsvyan, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of
Rata’s

requests

for

asylum,

the

Convention

protection

under

thoroughly

reviewed

Rata’s

merits

the

not

compel

a

Against

record,

hearing,

supporting evidence.

withholding

her

of

Torture.

including

asylum

removal,

the

We

and
have

transcript

application,

and

of
all

We conclude that the record evidence does

ruling

contrary

to

any

of

the

administrative

findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly,

we

deny

reasons stated by the Board.

the

2014).
legal
before

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Rata (B.I.A. Nov. 12,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

2