Mauricio Hernandez-Mancilla v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, No. 16-2027 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2027 MAURICIO ERNESTO HERNANDEZ-MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: June 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Vasquez, VASQUEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Wendy Benner-Leon, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mauricio Ernesto Hernandez-Mancilla, 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 denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Hernandez-Mancilla’s merits hearing before the immigration court 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 decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Hernandez-Mancilla (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2016). 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.