Salvador Javitt Briceno v. Merrick Garland
This text of Salvador Javitt Briceno v. Merrick Garland (Salvador Javitt Briceno 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: 22-2269 Doc: 30 Filed: 04/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2269
SALVADOR ANTONIO JAVITT BRICENO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 16, 2024 Decided: April 5, 2024
Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Vincent Rivas-Flores, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jessica R. Lesnau, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2269 Doc: 30 Filed: 04/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Salvador Antonio Javitt Briceno, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s decision finding Javitt Briceno removable and denying his
request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Javitt Briceno’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 Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113,
124 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Javitt Briceno (B.I.A.
Nov. 30, 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Salvador Javitt Briceno v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvador-javitt-briceno-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.