Maria Guzman Pineda v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1871

MARIA LETICIA GUZMAN PINEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: February 10, 2015 Decided: February 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugo Cesar Castro, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce
R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay,
Assistant Director, Kristofer R. McDonald, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Maria Leticia Guzman Pineda, a native and citizen of

El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation

of removal.

We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate

deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration

and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang

Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the

Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule.

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).

Upon review, we agree that Pineda’s conviction for

forgery of a public record was a crime involving moral

turpitude, which rendered her ineligible for cancellation of

removal. We therefore uphold the agency’s decision and deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In

re: Pineda (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2014). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3