Vilma Estela Guardado-Alvarenga; C.m.c.g. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1807
VILMA ESTELA GUARDADO-ALVARENGA; C.M.C.G.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 6, 2024 Decided: July 10, 2024
Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Tamara L. Jezic, JEZIC & MOYSE, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for
Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Erica B.
Miles, Assistant Director, Christopher G. Gieger, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vilma Estela Guardado-Alvarenga and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that substantial
evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review). We also conclude that
there was no error in the Board’s finding that the IJ did not clearly err in deciding that the
Petitioners did not show that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect
them from the private actors they feared. See Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359,
365 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating burden on applicant when private actor is source of persecution
or fear of persecution). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial
of CAT protection and there was no legal error in the Board’s analysis. See Cabrera
Vasquez v. Barr, 919 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). Lastly,
we conclude that there was no error in the denial of the minor daughter’s applications for
relief. Her request for relief depended solely on her mother’s evidence.
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 --