Xiomara Hernandez-Cea v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 593 F. App'x 229 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1615
XIOMARA YAMILETH HERNANDEZ-CEA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: February 13, 2015
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan A. Evans, Erin B. Ashwell, WOODS ROGERS PLC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Allison
Frayer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiomara Yamileth Hernandez-Cea, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record,
including the transcript of Hernandez-Cea’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 adverse credibility finding.
See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006). * We
further conclude that a review of Hernandez-Cea’s independent
corroborating evidence does not compel a different result.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Hernandez-Cea (B.I.A.
May 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
*
The agency’s denial of Hernandez-Cea’s request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture is likewise
supported by substantial evidence. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495
F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of
review).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3