Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-888-210. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999779212]. [15-2117]

Appeal: 15-2117

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2117

EDWIN ANTONIO MIRANDA-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 15, 2016

Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.

and

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 22, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2117

Doc: 32

Filed: 03/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Edwin Antonio Miranda-Mendez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

for

review

Immigration

Appeals

(Board)

Immigration

Judge’s

denial

withholding of removal.
record,

including

hearing,

the

evidence.

the

of

an

order

dismissing
of

his

his

requests

of

the

appeal
for

Board

of

from

the

asylum

and

We have reviewed the administrative
transcript

applications

for

of

Miranda-Mendez’s

relief,

and

all

merits

supporting

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.

evidence

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

supports

the

(2012),

Board’s

and

that

decision.

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

substantial

See

INS

v.

We accordingly deny

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Miranda-Mendez (B.I.A. Aug. 25, 2015).

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