Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland
This text of Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland (Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1374 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1374
MAXIMILIANO MARTINEZ CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 6, 2024 Decided: February 13, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, SHERMAN-STOLTZ LAW GROUP, PLLC, Gum Spring, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Assistant Director, A. Ashley Arthur, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1374 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Maximiliano Martinez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying Martinez Cruz’s application for deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. Upon review of the record, including the transcript of
Martinez Cruz’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and consideration of the
parties’ arguments in conjunction with the relevant authorities, we conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the immigration judge’s factual
findings, as affirmed by the Board, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief, see Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th
Cir. 2023). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re Martinez Cruz (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maximiliano-martinez-cruz-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.