Victor Escobar-Almaraz v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-2519 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2519 VICTOR ESCOBAR-ALMARAZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Benjamin Mark Moss, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Victor Escobar-Almaraz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Escobar-Almaraz s merits hearing, his application for relief, 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) (2006), and decision. that evidence supports the Board s See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Perlera-Sola (finding substantial v. that Holder, although 699 the F.3d 572, immigration 577 (1st judge Cir. deemed 2012) alien s testimony to be credible, it was not specific enough to support asylum claim given Mr. Perlera s failure to identify any of the assailants and more importantly, their motives for attacking ). We further uphold the Board s finding that Escobar-Almaraz s Convention Against Torture claim was too speculative to warrant relief. See In re J.F.F., 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 917-18 (A.G. 2006) (stating that a petitioner may not establish a claim for CAT relief merely by stringing together a series of suppositions to show that it is more likely than not that torture will result 2 where the evidence does not establish that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to occur). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Nov. 13, 2012). facts and materials legal before See In re: Escobar-Almaraz (B.I.A. We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.