Glenda Lizama-De Coreas v. William Barr

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1922

GLENDA CECILIA LIZAMA-DE COREAS; C.A.C.L.; N.P.C.L.; Y.L.C.L., Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 30, 2019 Decided: June 14, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tamara L. Jezic, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sunah Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Glenda Cecilia Lizama-De Coreas (Lizama) and her three minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s oral decision and dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of Lizama’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

Specifically, upon review of the certified administrative record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and Lizama’s supporting materials, 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 denial of the various forms of relief sought in this case, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Nor do we find that the agency abused its discretion in denying Lizama’s application for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (2019). Accord Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540, 550 (8th Cir. 2009) (providing standard of review for the denial of humanitarian asylum). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board in its order adopting the Immigration Judge’s decision. See In re Lizama-De Coreas (B.I.A. July 16, 2018). 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