Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Julio Melendez Lizama v. Jefferson Sessions III, 16-2033 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2033 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2033 JULIO ERNESTO MELENDEZ LIZAMA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: August 30, 2017 Decided: September 11, 2017 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Li
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-2033


JULIO ERNESTO MELENDEZ LIZAMA,

             Petitioner,

             v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

             Respondent.



              On Petition for Review of the Board of Immigration Appeals


Submitted: August 30, 2017                                  Decided: September 11, 2017


Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Julio Ernesto Melendez Lizama, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of

the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Melendez Lizama’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 Melendez Lizama (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2016). 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




                                            2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer