UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2448
OSCAR ANOTNIO MARTINEZ-GARCIA; FRANCISCO
MARTINEZ-GARCIA,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-1675
OSCAR ANOTNIO MARTINEZ-GARCIA; FRANCISCO
MARTINEZ-GARCIA,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: December 22, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Evelyn R.G. Smallwood, HATCH ROCKERS IMMIGRATION, Durham, North
Carolina, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I.
McManus, Assistant Director, Juria L. Jones, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar A. Martinez-Garcia and Francisco Martinez-Garcia, brothers and natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying
their requests for asylum and withholding of removal, * and denying their motion to
reconsider.
With respect to the Board’s order dismissing the appeal, we have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting
evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any
of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial
evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2016). As no arguments have been raised on
appeal with respect to the denial of the motion to reconsider, we dismiss the petition for
review in part as to that order. See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. May 8, 2017);
Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (absent a miscarriage
of justice, arguments not raised in opening brief are waived).
Accordingly, we deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
On appeal, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4