Adolfo Masadiego-Alva, a/k/a Darling Eduardo Merida Merida v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2208
ADOLFO MASADIEGO-ALVA, a/k/a Darling Eduardo Merida Merida,
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: September 14, 2023
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES P.C.,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Alexander J. Lutz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adolfo Masadiego-Alva, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record
and conclude that the 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, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We
further conclude, upon de novo review of the questions of law raised by Masadiego-Alva,
that the denial of relief was not manifestly contrary to law. See Crespin-Valladares v.
Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C)). 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 of 2 --