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)
18-2413•Marcela Vanessa Siguenza-De Henriguez, a/k/a Marcela Vanessa Siguenza-De Henriquez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General
18-2413Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 23, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2413
MARCELA VANESSA SIGUENZA-DE HENRIGUEZ, a/k/a Marcela Vanessa
Siguenza-De Henriquez; M.A.H-S; M.J.H-S,
Petitioners,
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: May 23, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit
Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nancy Pulliam Quinn, QUINN LAW FIRM, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Assistant Director,
Matthew A. Connelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marcela Vanessa Siguenza-De Henriguez (Siguenza) and her minor children,
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
denial of Siguenza’s requests for the relief of asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record and 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 Siguenza-De Henriguez (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 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.