Grecia Monjaras-Romero v. Jefferson Sessions III , 706 F. App'x 125 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1436
GRECIA DEL CARMEN MONJARAS-ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: December 14, 2017
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edmundo G. Rogers, U.S. IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, LLC, Lauderhill, Florida, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant
Director, Todd J. Cochran, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Grecia del Carmen Monjaras-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of
removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Monjaras-
Romero’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. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
We have also considered the various bases for Monjaras-Romero’s claim that the
immigration judge’s conduct at the merits hearing violated her due process rights and find
no error in the Board’s conclusion that Monjaras-Romero failed to show that the
immigration judge was biased or that she did not receive a full or fair hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(1) (2012) (giving immigration judges authority to “interrogate, examine, and
cross-examine the alien and any witnesses”); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir.
2002) (providing that an alien must be “accorded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner, i.e., . . . [to] receive a full and fair hearing on [her]
claims”).
*
Monjaras-Romero does not challenge the denial of her request for protection under
the Convention Against Torture and has therefore waived appellate review. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re
Monjaras-Romero (B.I.A. Mar. 10, 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
3