Faustino Perez-Cruz v. Merrick Garland

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Faustino Perez-Cruz v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1689 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1689

FAUSTINO PEREZ-CRUZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: November 8, 2022

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1689 Doc: 26 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Faustino Perez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration

Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the

transcript of Perez-Cruz’s 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), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s

decision, see Gomis v. Holder,

571 F.3d 353, 359

(4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v. Gonzales,

495 F.3d 113, 124

(4th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Perez-Cruz (B.I.A. May 20, 2021). 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished