USCA4 Appeal: 23-2090 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2090

ELVIN OMAR ROMERO-LOPEZ; ANGELA JOHANY ROMERO-RIVERA,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: September 5, 2024

Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John W. Goodman, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, MURRAY OSORIO PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Zoe J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Erik R. Quick, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-2090 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Elvin Omar Romero-Lopez and his daughter, natives and citizens of Honduras,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing

their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Romero-Lopez’s

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that there was no

error in the Board’s analysis of the IJ’s findings that Romero-Lopez did not show that the

Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him from his persecutors. See

Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson,

(4th Cir. 2021) (stating proper standard

when private actor is source of persecution or fear of persecution). We also conclude that

the Petitioners fail to show that the Board engaged in improper factfinding. We have also

considered the Petitioners’ claim that the Board failed to consider that one of Romero-

Lopez’s alleged persecutors was a government official acting under color of law and find

the claim lacks 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

2