Marisol Aracely Arias Alvarado; Herbert Alexander Mejia Arias v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2004
MARISOL ARACELY ARIAS ALVARADO; HERBERT ALEXANDER MEJIA
ARIAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 8, 2024 Decided: March 5, 2024
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Benjamin R. Winograd, IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE APPELLATE
CENTER, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, David J. Schor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marisol Aracely Arias Alvarado (“Arias Alvarado”) and her son, 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 (“IJ”) denial of Arias
Alvarado’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We deny the petition for review.
We will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). “The agency decision that an alien is not
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of
discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(D)). “Where, as here, the [Board] adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision but
gives additional reasons for doing so, we review both opinions.” Baharon v. Holder, 588
F.3d 228, 231 (4th Cir. 2009).
We have reviewed the record and the Petitioners’ claims and conclude that the
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We further conclude that the Board’s review of the IJ’s finding
that Arias Alvarado did not show that her fear of persecution if she returns to El Salvador
1 Arias Alvarado’s son was a derivative asylum applicant. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(3).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
was objectively reasonable was not manifestly contrary to law.2 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 The Petitioners do not challenge the finding that the threats were not evidence of
past persecution. Nor do they challenge the denial of protection under the CAT. Thus,
those issues are waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912
F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that failure to address the denial of CAT relief in the
brief waives review of that issue).

-- 3 of 3 --