Rosa del Arevalo de Arriola v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-1132 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1132 ROSA DEL CARMEN AREVALO DE ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 20, 2016 Decided: December 2, 2016 Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jenny C. Lee, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rosa del Carmen Arevalo de Arriola, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Arevalo de Arriola’s 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), supports the Board’s decision. and that substantial evidence See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 2016). In re Arevalo de Arriola (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 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 2

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.