Josue De La Cruz-Siana v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-298-580. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000041811]. [16-1663]

Appeal: 16-1663

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1663

JOSUE MIRRAIN DE LA CRUZ-SIANA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: January 31, 2017

Decided: March 14, 2017

Before NIEMEYER 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Keith I.
McManus, Assistant Director, Juria L. Jones, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1663

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Josue Mirrain De La Cruz-Siana (“Siana”), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Siana’s merits hearing,
his application for relief from removal, 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 that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s decision affirming and adopting the Immigration Judge’s reasoning,
see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Nor do we discern any legal error
in the agency’s rejection of the proposed social group advanced by Siana. See Zelaya v.
Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 165-67 (4th Cir. 2012); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 447 (4th
Cir. 2011); In re S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 584-88 (B.I.A. 2008); In re E-A-G-, 24 I.
& N. Dec. 591, 594-96 (B.I.A. 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re De La Cruz-Siana (B.I.A. May 19, 2016). 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