Marvin Estuardo Lopez-Mendoza v. Loretta E. Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-712-905 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000122773].. [16-2457]

Appeal: 16-2457

Doc: 24

Filed: 07/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2457

MARVIN ESTUARDO LOPEZ-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 19, 2017

Decided: July 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Ann M. Welhaf, Lindsay Donahue, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2457

Doc: 24

Filed: 07/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marvin Estuardo Lopez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the
Immigration Judge’s denial of Lopez-Mendoza’s requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lopez-Mendoza’s merits hearing and all
supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Lopez-Mendoza (B.I.A.
Nov. 29, 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