Juan Herrera v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2461
JUAN CARLOS HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parastoo G. Zahedi, LAW OFFICE OF ZAHEDI, PLLC, Vienna,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant
Director, Michael C. Heyse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juan Carlos Herrera, 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 order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We deny the petition for review.
We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the [Board’s] interpretation of the [Immigration
and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691–92 (4th Cir. 2008).
Administrative findings of fact “are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the
agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule.
Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015).
Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s finding that Herrera failed to establish that he was
eligible for withholding of removal. * We therefore deny the
*Herrera has abandoned review of the denial of protection
under the CAT and the finding that he was statutorily ineligible
for asylum because he did not raise these issues in his brief.
Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir.
2013) (failing to raise challenge to Board’s ruling or finding
in opening brief waives issue).
2
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Herrera (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2013). 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