Evelyn Galdamez-Leon v. Merrick Garland, No. 20-1744 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1744 EVELYN JEAMILETH GALDAMEZ-LEON, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 18, 2021 Decided: April 2, 2021 Before AGEE, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evelyn Jeamileth Galdamez-Leon, Petitioner Pro Se. Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aaron David Nelson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Evelyn Jeamileth Galdamez-Leon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Galdamez-Leon’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We discern no legal error in the agency’s holding that Galdamez-Leon did not advance a cognizable particular social group. We further 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), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief in this case, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F. 3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Galdamez-Leon (B.I.A. June 8, 2020). 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.