Candelario Lara v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 549 F. App'x 198 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1639
    CANDELARIO LARA, a/k/a Lara Candelario,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   December 17, 2013              Decided:   December 31, 2013
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF      RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
    Maryland, for Petitioner.   Stuart   F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
    General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,     Assistant Director, Joanna L.
    Watson,   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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Candelario Lara, 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 denial of his requests for Temporary Protected Status
    (“TPS”), asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under
    the Convention Against Torture.              We have thoroughly reviewed the
    record, including the transcript of Lara’s merits hearing and
    the supporting evidence.         We conclude that the record evidence
    does not compel a ruling contrary to the Board’s dismissal.                        See
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B) (2006); INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992).       We further conclude that Lara was statutorily
    ineligible for TPS relief as a result of his two misdemeanor
    convictions.       See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B).                We find no merit
    to his claim that he is eligible for an exception because the
    two convictions arose from a single scheme of criminal conduct.
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1639

Citation Numbers: 549 F. App'x 198

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Keenan

Filed Date: 12/31/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024