UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2020
CARLOS HUMBERTO GOMEZ-VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 8, 2018 Decided: March 28, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sean R. Hanover, HANOVER LAW, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A.
Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Siu P.
Wong, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos Humberto Gomez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 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
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). *
We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re
Gomez-Vasquez (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2017). 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.
PETITION DENIED
*
Gomez-Vasquez has waived review of the denial of protection under the CAT
because he does not raise the issue in the argument section of his brief. United States v.
Holness, 706 F.3d 579, 592 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting the “oft-cited rule that contentions not
raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 217 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that an
appellant “must raise in its opening brief all the issues it wishes the court to address” and
concluding that an appellant waived contentions not briefed (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
2