USCA4 Appeal: 23-1997 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1997

DANIEL ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 31, 2024 Decided: September 13, 2024

Before KING, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Joseph Moravec, BLESSINGER LEGAL, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1997 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Daniel Antonio Hernandez-Cruz, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the arguments Hernandez-Cruz raises in his brief in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Hernandez-Cruz’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. 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), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Cabrera Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). We also conclude that Hernandez-Cruz failed to exhaust his claim that the agency used the wrong law. Because the Attorney General has properly invoked 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement as to this claim, we will not review it. And upon our review, we conclude that the Board did not err in finding that Hernandez-Cruz’s particular social groups were not cognizable.

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