Julio Argueta-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1193

JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-1440

JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Julio Cesar Argueta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El

Salvador, petitions for review of orders of the Board of

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration

Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and denying

reconsideration. We have thoroughly reviewed the record,

including the transcript of the merits hearing, the applications

for relief, and all supporting evidence. We 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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision

denying reconsideration. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246,

249 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:

Argueta-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Jan. 26 & Mar. 26, 2015). 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.

PETITIONS DENIED