Maria Mejia-Cantarero v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 22-1255
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1255 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1255

MARIA ANTONIA MEJIA-CANTARERO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: December 28, 2022 Decided: January 13, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Ofelia L. Calderon, Briana Carlson, CALDERÓN SEGUIN PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1255 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Maria Antonia Mejia-Cantarero, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

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

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the

record, including the transcript of Mejia-Cantarero’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), and that substantial evidence

supports the Board’s decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009);

Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Mejia-Cantarero (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 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