Maria Salinas De Hernandez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 23-1455
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1455 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1455

MARIA LAURA SALINAS DE HERNANDEZ; A.J.S.H.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: January 17, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2024

Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1455 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Maria Laura Salinas De Hernandez and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal

from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying Salinas De Hernandez’s applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the Petitioners’ claims and conclude that the

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 Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review. * In re Salinas De Hernandez (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 2023). 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

* The Petitioners’ brief did not raise any issues particular to A.J.S.H. and this opinion has no bearing on any independent claims for relief advanced by him.