USCA4 Appeal: 23-1816 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/11/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1816

YOLANDA GARCIA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 22, 2024 Decided: July 11, 2024

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Laura Halliday Hickein, Senior Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1816 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Yolanda Garcia-Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) finding that the immigration judge (“IJ”) properly denied her motion for a continuance and dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the record and the agency’s decisions and conclude that the denial of Garcia-Martinez’s motion for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. See Gonzalez v. Garland, 16 F.4th 131, 144 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). We further conclude that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

See Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291, 298 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review).

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of protection under the CAT. See Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). Garcia-Martinez failed to present credible evidence that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to Honduras. We conclude that her remaining issues lack merit.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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