Rosa Benavides-Castro v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Petition for review denied [999827431-2] Originating case number: A206-311-520 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999997323]. [16-1566]

Appeal: 16-1566

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1566

ROSA GLORIA BENAVIDES-CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

January 4, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy R. Woods, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY R. WOODS, LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Anna Juarez, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1566

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rosa Gloria Benavides-Castro, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

Immigration

Appeals

for

review

(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

her

of

the

appeal

Board
from

of
the

immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Benavides-Castro’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),

and

that

substantial

evidence

supports the Board’s decision, 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.
2016).

In re Benavides-Castro (B.I.A. Apr. 21,

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