Reina Ramos De Chacon v. Jefferson Sessions III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-888-944,A206-888-945,A206-888-946 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000186165].. [17-1441]

Appeal: 17-1441

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1441

REINA MARISOL RAMOS DE CHACON; V.K.C.R.; A.J.C.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 27, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdoul Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readler,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1441

Doc: 29

Filed: 11/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reina Marisol Ramos De Chacon and her two daughters, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of De Chacon’s application
for asylum. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of De
Chacon’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. 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