Dilma Arely SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ; I.Y.S., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: May 19, 2020
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Kate B. Yi, Law Clerk, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Stephanie E. Beckett, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Dilma Arely Sanchez-Sanchez and her minor daughter, I.Y.S., natives and citizens of Honduras, appeal an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying Sanchez-Sanchez’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).* 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) (2018), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (stating standard of review for denial of asylum); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review for denial of CAT protection). Further, we find the due process claim to be unavailing because the alleged error did not impact the outcome of the case. See Nardea v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 675, 681 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating standard for due process claim).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Sanchez-Sanchez (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019). 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.
FOOTNOTE. I.Y.S. was a derivative asylum applicant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2018).
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.