Rosa del Arevalo de Arriola v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-887-222. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999979622]. [16-1132]

Appeal: 16-1132

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1132

ROSA DEL CARMEN AREVALO DE ARRIOLA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 20, 2016

Decided:

December 2, 2016

Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jenny C. Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1132

Doc: 24

Filed: 12/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rosa del Carmen Arevalo de Arriola, 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 requests for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We

have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of
Arevalo de Arriola’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.
We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8
U.S.C.

§

1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

supports the Board’s decision.

and

that

substantial

evidence

See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,

359 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board.
2016).

In re Arevalo de Arriola (B.I.A. Jan. 11,

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