Elder Ramirez-Martinez v. Loretta Lynch, No. 14-1927 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1927 ELDER ANTONIO RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 19, 2016 Decided: November 18, 2016 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Himedes V. Chicas, JEZIC & MOYSE, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland; Ben Winograd, IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE APPELLATE CENTER, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Matthew A. Spurlock, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Elder Antonio Ramirez-Martinez, 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 transcript thoroughly of Ramirez-Martinez’s supporting evidence. not compel a reviewed the record, merits including hearing and the all 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 Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359. Accordingly, we deny reasons stated by the Board. Aug. 7, 2014). the petition for review for the See In re Ramirez-Martinez (B.I.A. 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 ∗ Ramirez-Martinez does not challenge the denial of his asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). 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.