Norma Murillo-Zuniga v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2458 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2458 NORMA MURILLO-ZUNIGA; K.S.A., Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 9, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, Tamara Jezic, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Norma Murillo-Zuniga and her son, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration asylum, judge s denial withholding of of removal, Convention Against Torture. * record, including hearing, evidence. her the Murillo-Zuniga s protection under for the We have thoroughly reviewed the transcript application and requests for of Murillo-Zuniga s relief, and all merits supporting We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 evidence U.S.C. § supports 1252(b)(4)(B) the (2012), Board s decision. and that See INS substantial v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Nov. 6, 2013). See In re: Murillo-Zuniga (B.I.A. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials * The Petitioners have failed to raise any challenges to the denial of Murillo-Zuniga s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. They have therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 2 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.