Heydi Recinos-Echeverria v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-1328 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1328 HEYDI LORENA RECINOS-ECHEVERRIA; D.A.D., Petitioners, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 28, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2016 Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Andrew M. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Heydi Lorena Recinos-Echeverria and her minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Recinos-Echeverria’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have transcript of thoroughly reviewed Recinos-Echeverria’s supporting evidence. the record, merits including hearing and the all We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, and that 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. 15, 2016). See In re Recinos-Echeverria (B.I.A. Mar. 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 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.