Maria Aguillon Amaya v. Jefferson Sessions III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-289-687. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000309730]. [17-1851]

Appeal: 17-1851

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/11/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1851

MARIA WENDY AGUILLON AMAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 21, 2018

Decided: June 11, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anser Ahmad, AHMAD AND ASSOCIATES, McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad
A. Readler, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant
Director, Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1851

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/11/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Maria Wendy Aguillon Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without
opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Aguillon Amaya’s requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Aguillon Amaya’s merits
hearing before the IJ 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 IJ’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 IJ. In re
Aguillon Amaya (I.J. Dec. 1, 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

∗

Where, as here, the Board affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion, we “treat the
reasoning of the [IJ] [o]rder as that of the [Board] for purposes of our review.” Haoua v.
Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007).

2