UMANZOR ORELLANA v. SESSIONS, 17-1007. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20170714063
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Orellana's merits hearing a
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Orellana's merits hearing an..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Juan Alberto Umanzor Orellana, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Orellana'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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Orellana (B.I.A. Dec. 6, 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.
Source: Leagle
