Juan Herrera v. Loretta Lynch, No. 13-2461 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2461 JUAN CARLOS HERRERA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 18, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Parastoo G. Zahedi, LAW OFFICE OF ZAHEDI, PLLC, Vienna, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael C. Heyse, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Carlos Herrera, 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 order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We We deny the petition for review. review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the [Board’s] interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Lin v. Mukasey, Administrative 517 findings F.3d of 685, fact 691–92 “are (4th Li Fang Cir. conclusive 2008). unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence rule. Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 948 (4th Cir. 2015). Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Herrera failed to establish that he was eligible for withholding of removal. * * We therefore deny the Herrera has abandoned review of the denial of under the CAT and the finding that he was statutorily for asylum because he did not raise these issues in Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 2013) (failing to raise challenge to Board’s ruling in opening brief waives issue). 2 protection ineligible his brief. (4th Cir. or finding petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. re: Herrera (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2013). We dispense See In 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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
