Filimon Garcia-Sandoval v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-2271 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2271 FILIMON GARCIA-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kevin J. Conway, Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Filimon Garcia-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 deny the petition for review. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We conclude that the Board did not err in finding that Garcia-Sandoval did not establish that he had an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of persecution. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Garcia-Sandoval did not demonstrate for protection under the CAT that he was more likely than not to be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
