Margarita Torres-Mejia v. William Barr, No. 19-1997 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1997 MARGARITA DEL CARMEN TORRES-MEJIA; G.Y.R.T, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 24, 2020 Decided: April 15, 2020 Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David C. Drake, DRAKE IMMIGRATION LAW, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay Corliss, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Margarita Del Carmen Torres-Mejia 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 decision denying Torres-Mejia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have considered Torres-Mejia’s claims after thoroughly reviewing 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) (2018), 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 Torres-Mejia (B.I.A. Aug. 15, 2019). We deny the motion for summary disposition as moot and 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.