Reyes Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-947-648, A208-118-461, A208-118-439. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000290061].. [17-2060]

Appeal: 17-2060

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/08/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2060

REYES GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, a/k/a Reyes Gonzalez-Martinez; LUISA
VILLAGOMEZ-CANSINO, a/k/a Luisa via Gomez Cancino; A.G-V., a/k/a
A.G.vG., a minor,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 30, 2018

Decided: May 8, 2018

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus,
Assistant Director, John B. Holt, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-2060

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/08/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reyes Gonzalez Martinez and his wife and child, all natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of Gonzalez Martinez’s
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Gonzalez Martinez’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 Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Gonzalez Martinez (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2017). 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