Rosaura Bonilla-Minero v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 22-1529
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1529 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1529

ROSAURA GUADALUPE BONILLA-MINERO,

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: Mary Lynn A. Tedesco, TEDESCO LEGAL, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1529 Doc: 21 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Rosaura Guadalupe Bonilla-Minero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s oral decision denying Bonilla-Minero’s applications for asylum and

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

the arguments raised 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 the agency did not err in concluding that Bonilla-Minero’s advanced particular

social group was not cognizable, see Morales v. Garland, 51 F.4th 553, 557-58

(4th Cir. 2022) (discussing cognizability requirements). Nor does the record show that the

Board abused its discretion in not referring Bonilla-Minero’s administrative appeal to a

three-member panel. See Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159, 164 (4th Cir. 2009)

(providing standard of review for this issue).

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

In re Bonilla-Minero (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 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

∗ Bonilla-Minero does not challenge the denial of her 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).