The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-2362•Jose Rogelio Hernandez Alas, a/k/a Jose Alas Hernandez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
18-2362Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 24, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2362
JOSE ROGELIO HERNANDEZ ALAS, a/k/a Jose Alas Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 17, 2019 Decided: July 24, 2019
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant
Director, Lindsay Corliss, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Rogelio Hernandez Alas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his requests for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Hernandez Alas’s merits
hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not
compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Hernandez Alas (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2018). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.