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.
Eliseo De Los Santos BERMUDES-LOPEZ; J.E.B-P, a/k/a J.A.B-P, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Eliseo De Los Santos Bermudes-Lopez and his minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying Bermudes-Lopez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).* We deny the petition for review.
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 administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground, see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (stating standard of review); Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53, 59 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting applicant bears burden of showing past or feared persecution is on account of protected ground).
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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Petitioners do not challenge the denial of CAT relief in the argument section of the brief. Accordingly, this issue is abandoned. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“[T]he argument [section of the brief] ․ must contain ․ appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies[.]”); see also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding CAT claim not raised on appeal was abandoned).
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 18-1000
Decided: August 08, 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)