U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2024

Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland

Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 13, 2024

Maximiliano Martinez Cruz v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1374 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/13/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1374

MAXIMILIANO MARTINEZ CRUZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: February 6, 2024 Decided: February 13, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, SHERMAN-STOLTZ LAW GROUP, PLLC, Gum Spring, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Assistant Director, A. Ashley Arthur, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1374 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/13/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Maximiliano Martinez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying Martinez Cruz’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Upon review of the record, including the transcript of Martinez Cruz’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and consideration of the parties’ arguments in conjunction with the relevant authorities, we conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the immigration judge’s factual findings, as affirmed by the Board, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Martinez Cruz (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.