Julio Argueta-Rodriguez v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1193 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1193 JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15-1440 JULIO CESAR ARGUETA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 27, 2015 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Senior Litigation Counsel, Hillel R. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Julio Cesar Argueta-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions Immigration for Appeals review of dismissing his orders appeal of of the the Board of Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and denying reconsideration. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing, the applications for relief, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and decision. that substantial evidence supports the Board’s See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We further find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision denying reconsideration. 249 (4th Cir. 2009). review for the See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, Accordingly, we deny the petitions for reasons stated by the Board. See Argueta-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Jan. 26 & Mar. 26, 2015). In re: 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. PETITIONS 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.
