UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1924
ERIKA GRISELDA RIVERA-SOLORZANO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: March 22, 2017
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director,
Alexander J. Lutz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Erika Griselda Rivera-Solorzano, 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 requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record,
including the transcript of Rivera-Solorzano’s merits hearing
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)
(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re Rivera-Solorzano (B.I.A.
July 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*Rivera-Solorzano does not raise any challenges to the
agency’s denial of her request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We would lack jurisdiction over any
such claims on the ground that she failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies before the Board. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638–40
(4th Cir. 2008).
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3