Marcela Siguenza-De Henriguez v. William Barr, No. 18-2413 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2413 MARCELA VANESSA SIGUENZA-DE HENRIGUEZ, a/k/a Marcela Vanessa Siguenza-De Henriquez; M.A.H-S; M.J.H-S, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 17, 2019 Decided: May 23, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Pulliam Quinn, QUINN LAW FIRM, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Assistant Director, Matthew A. Connelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcela Vanessa Siguenza-De Henriguez (Siguenza) and her minor children, 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 Siguenza’s requests for the relief of asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s 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 for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Siguenza-De Henriguez (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 2018). 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.