USCA4 Appeal: 23-2068 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2068

PAOLA VANESSA MELENDEZ-CALDERON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: August 20, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eric R. Suarez, SANABRIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brooke M. Maurer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-2068 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Paola Vanessa Melendez-Calderon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal

from the Immigration Judge’s denial of Melendez-Calderon’s applications for asylum and

withholding of removal. * We have reviewed the record and Melendez-Calderon’s claims

and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

administrative factual findings, see

(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence

supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

(1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Melendez-Calderon (B.I.A. Sept. 15,

2023). 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

* Melendez-Calderon also challenges the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, a claim she failed to exhaust before the Board. Because the Attorney General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in

(d)(1), we decline to consider this argument. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,

(2023); Trejo Tepas v. Garland,

(4th Cir. 2023).

2