Samuel Tzic-Chicaj v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 17-1535 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1535 SAMUEL RODRIGO TZIC-CHICAJ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 28, 2017 Decided: November 30, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessica L. Yañez, YAÑEZ IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christina P. Greer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Samuel Rodrigo Tzic-Chicaj, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Tzic-Chicaj’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Tzic-Chicaj failed to establish a nexus between past persecution and fear of future persecution and a protected ground and that he failed to establish eligibility for protection under the CAT. 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. In re Tzic-Chicaj (B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2017). 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.
