DUPLESSY v. SESSIONS, 17-1745. (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20180511112
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 11, 2018
Latest Update: May 11, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Marie Kety Duplessy, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 Duplessy's merits hearing and all supporting
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Marie Kety Duplessy, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 Duplessy's merits hearing and all supporting e..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Marie Kety Duplessy, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 Duplessy's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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 Board's decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Duplessy (B.I.A. May 18, 2017). 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.
Source: Leagle
