Jose Sanchez v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1140 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1140 JOSE ARMANDO J.A.S.A., SANCHEZ; AMANDA MARIBEL ANDINO SEVILLA; Petitioners, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 16, 2015 Decided: October 1, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas K. Ragland, BENACH RAGLAND LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jose Armando Sanchez, his wife, Amanda Maribel Andino Sevilla, and their minor son, J.A.S.A., * natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review Immigration Appeals (Board) immigration judge’s denial withholding of Against removal, Torture. We of an order dismissing of and have of their Sanchez’s the Board of from the appeal requests protection under thoroughly reviewed for the asylum, Convention the record, including the transcript of Sanchez’s 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 reasons stated by the Board. 2015). legal before for review for the In re Sanchez (B.I.A. Jan. 14, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED * Sanchez is the primary applicant for asylum and the claims of his wife and son are derivative of his application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2015). 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.