Julio Argueta-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch , 621 F. App'x 228 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1193
JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-1440
JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Julio Cesar Argueta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and denying
reconsideration. We have thoroughly reviewed the record,
including the transcript of the merits hearing, the applications
for relief, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the
record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative findings of fact, 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 further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision
denying reconsideration. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246,
249 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Argueta-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Jan. 26 & Mar. 26, 2015). 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
3