Erika Rivera-Solorzano v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 16-1924 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1924 ERIKA GRISELDA RIVERA-SOLORZANO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: March 22, 2017 Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Alexander J. Lutz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Erika Griselda Rivera-Solorzano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions Immigration Appeals immigration removal, the all We evidence does not an order of her her of the requests under have thoroughly reviewed Rivera-Solorzano’s evidence. compel a We ruling conclude contrary from for protection of Board appeal and transcript supporting of dismissing denial Torture. * including and of review (Board) judge’s withholding Against for the of the asylum, Convention the record, merits hearing that to the any record of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and decision. that substantial evidence we deny the petition reasons stated by the Board. July 18, 2016). and the Board’s See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, facts supports legal for review for the In re Rivera-Solorzano (B.I.A. We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are * adequately presented in the Rivera-Solorzano does not raise any challenges to the agency’s denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We would lack jurisdiction over any such claims on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638–40 (4th Cir. 2008). 2 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.