Marcelo Sol-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1878 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1878 MARCELO BLADIMIR SOL-FLORES, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 18, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amanda Bethea Keaveny, THE LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BETHEA KEAVENY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Marcelo Bladimir Sol-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration immigration withholding Appeals ( Board ) judge s of denial removal, Torture. * Against dismissing We of his his appeal requests from for and protection under the have thoroughly reviewed the asylum, Convention the record, including the transcript of Sol-Flores merits hearing and all supporting evidence. not compel a We conclude that the record evidence does 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. 13, 2013). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this See In re: Sol-Flores (B.I.A. June court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED * Sol-Flores has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.