Gelver Vasquez Chilel v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-1716
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1716 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1716

GELVER VASQUEZ CHILEL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brandon T. Callahan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1716 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Gelver Vasquez Chilel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s oral decision denying Vasquez Chilel’s applications for asylum and withholding

of removal. ∗ Upon review of the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments

advanced in this court, we are satisfied 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), and

that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, 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 Vasquez Chilel (B.I.A. June 10, 2022). 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

∗ Vasquez Chilel does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).