UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2519
VICTOR ESCOBAR-ALMARAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director,
Benjamin Mark Moss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Victor Escobar-Almaraz, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Escobar-Almaraz’s merits hearing, his application
for relief, and all supporting evidence. We conclude 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)
(2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992);
Perlera-Sola v. Holder, 699 F.3d 572, 577 (1st Cir. 2012)
(finding that although the immigration judge deemed alien’s
testimony to be credible, it was not specific enough to support
asylum claim “given Mr. Perlera’s failure to identify any of the
assailants and more importantly, their motives for attacking”).
We further uphold the Board’s finding that Escobar-Almaraz’s
Convention Against Torture claim was too speculative to warrant
relief. See In re J.F.F., 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 917-18 (A.G.
2006) (stating that a petitioner may not establish a claim for
CAT relief merely by stringing together a series of suppositions
to show that it is more likely than not that torture will result
2
where the evidence does not establish that each step in the
hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to occur).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Escobar-Almaraz (B.I.A.
Nov. 13, 2012). 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
3