Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-024-848 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000118274].. [17-1007]

Appeal: 17-1007

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1007

JUAN ALBERTO UMANZOR ORELLANA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: July 14, 2017

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Manuel A. Palau, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1007

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Orellana’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. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re Orellana (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 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