Meylin Reyes Nunez v. Matthew Whitaker, No. 18-1184 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1184 MEYLIN YOHANA REYES NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 25, 2018 Decided: November 9, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley B. Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, & HELMS, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Meylin Yohana Reyes Nunez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * We deny the petition for review. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Reyes Nunez failed to establish a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground or that her social group was sufficiently particular, see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review); Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53, 59 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting applicant bears burden of showing past or feared persecution on account of protected ground). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny Reyes Nunez’s motion to remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are * Reyes Nunez has waived review of the denial of protection under the CAT because she does not raise the issue in the argument section of her brief. Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (failing to raise challenge to Board’s ruling or finding in opening brief waives issue). 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3