Glenda Lizama-De Coreas v. William Barr ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1922
GLENDA CECILIA LIZAMA-DE COREAS; C.A.C.L.; N.P.C.L.; Y.L.C.L.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 30, 2019 Decided: June 14, 2019
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tamara L. Jezic, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Sunah Lee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Glenda Cecilia Lizama-De Coreas (Lizama) and her three minor children, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s oral decision and dismissing
their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of Lizama’s requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny
the petition for review.
Specifically, upon review of the certified administrative record, including the
transcript of the merits hearing and Lizama’s supporting materials, 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 denial of
the various forms of relief sought in this case, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 (1992). Nor do we find that the agency abused its discretion in denying Lizama’s
application for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (2019). Accord
Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540, 550 (8th Cir. 2009) (providing standard of review for
the denial of humanitarian asylum). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board in its order adopting the Immigration Judge’s decision. See
In re Lizama-De Coreas (B.I.A. July 16, 2018). 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