Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Oscar Anotnio MARTINEZ-GARCIA; Francisco Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Oscar Anotnio Martinez-Garcia; Francisco Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Oscar A. Martinez-Garcia and Francisco Martinez-Garcia, brothers and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their requests for asylum and withholding of removal,* and denying their motion to reconsider.
With respect to the Board’s order dismissing the appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2016). As no arguments have been raised on appeal with respect to the denial of the motion to reconsider, we dismiss the petition for review in part as to that order. See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. May 8, 2017); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (absent a miscarriage of justice, arguments not raised in opening brief are waived).
Accordingly, we deny in part, and dismiss in part, 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.
DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. On appeal, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture.
PER CURIAM:
Denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-2448, No. 17-1675
Decided: January 11, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)