Reine Monique Wodie v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-655-006. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999669156]. [15-1068]

Appeal: 15-1068

Doc: 21

Filed: 09/30/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1068

REINE MONIQUE THIEMELE WODIE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 16, 2015

Decided:

September 30, 2015

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Blair T.
O’Connor, Assistant Director, Scott M. Marconda, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1068

Doc: 21

Filed: 09/30/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reine Monique Thiemele Wodie, a native and citizen of the
Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration

Appeals

Immigration

Judge’s

withholding

of

Against

(Board)
denial

removal,

Torture.

We

dismissing
of

and

Wodie’s

her

appeal

requests
under

thoroughly

have

protection

reviewed

for

of

the

the

asylum,

Convention

the

record,

including the transcript of Wodie’s merits hearing, her asylum
application, and all supporting evidence.

We conclude that 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

decision.

that

substantial

we

deny

reasons stated by the Board.

legal
before

supports

the

Board’s

See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly,

2014).

evidence

the

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Wodie (B.I.A. Dec. 19,

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