Mauricio Hernandez-Mancilla v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-395-190 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000093242]. [16-2027]

Appeal: 16-2027

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2027

MAURICIO ERNESTO HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: June 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William J. Vasquez, VASQUEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Wendy Benner-Leon, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2027

Doc: 24

Filed: 06/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Mauricio Ernesto Hernandez-Mancilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Hernandez-Mancilla’s merits hearing before the
immigration court 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.
In re Hernandez-Mancilla (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 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