Heydi Recinos-Echeverria v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: A202-031-137, A202-031-138 Copies to all parties and the agency. [999964298]. [16-1328]

Appeal: 16-1328

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1328

HEYDI LORENA RECINOS-ECHEVERRIA; D.A.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

October 28, 2016

Decided:

November 8, 2016

Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioners.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Andrew M. O’Malley, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1328

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Heydi Lorena Recinos-Echeverria and her minor child, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal
from

the

immigration

judge’s

denial

of

Recinos-Echeverria’s

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
We

have

transcript

of

thoroughly

reviewed

Recinos-Echeverria’s

supporting evidence.

the

record,

merits

including

hearing

and

the
all

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),

substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision,

and

that

see INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board.
15, 2016).

See In re Recinos-Echeverria (B.I.A. Mar.

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