DE LEON VIVAS v. HOLDER, 14-1639. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20141216099
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Miguel Baltazar De Leon Vivas ("Petitioner"), 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 denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Petitioner's merits hearing and all supporting evid
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Miguel Baltazar De Leon Vivas ("Petitioner"), 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 denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Petitioner's merits hearing and all supporting evide..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Miguel Baltazar De Leon Vivas ("Petitioner"), 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 denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Petitioner'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 Board's decision. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: De Leon Vivas (B.I.A. May 30, 2014). 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
