Julio Argueta-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A074-397-415. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999686699]. [15-1193, 15-1440]

Appeal: 15-1193

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1193

JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

No. 15-1440

JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1193

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1193

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Julio Cesar Argueta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

Immigration

for

Appeals

review

of

dismissing

his

orders
appeal

of
of

the
the

Board

of

Immigration

Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and denying
reconsideration.

We

have

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record,

including the transcript of the merits hearing, the applications
for relief, 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

evidence

supports

the

Board’s

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

We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision
denying reconsideration.
249 (4th Cir. 2009).
review

for

the

See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246,
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for

reasons

stated

by

the

Board.

See

Argueta-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Jan. 26 & Mar. 26, 2015).

In

re:

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.
PETITIONS DENIED

3