UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1088
YAWA MAWUSE BEATRICE AGBENU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 27, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Assistant Attorney
General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laura M.L.
Maroldy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yawa Mawuse Beatrice Agbenu, a native and citizen of
Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including Agbenu’s testimony, her documentary exhibits,
and her supporting statements and conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
decision. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989);
INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly,
we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. 2 See In re: Agbenu (B.I.A. Jan. 3, 2014). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
1
This case has returned to the court after we granted the
Attorney General’s unopposed motion to remand to the Board.
2
Agbenu does not challenge the Board’s finding that she
waived review of the denial of relief under the CAT.
Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. Ngarurih v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3