Maria A. Lemus-Mancia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1831
MARIA A. LEMUS-MANCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 17, 2021 Decided: July 13, 2021
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sabatino F. Leo,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maria A. Lemus-Mancia (Lemus), a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her application for protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.
To qualify for protection under the CAT, an applicant bears the burden of
establishing that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to
the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2021). To state a prima facie
case for relief, an applicant must show that she will be subject to “severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, . . . [that] is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person
acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2021); see Rodriguez-Arias v.
Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 971 (4th Cir. 2019). The applicant need not prove the torture
would be inflicted on account of a protected ground. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113,
115-16 (4th Cir. 2007). While we review for substantial evidence the relevant factual
findings related to the denial of CAT relief, we review de novo the involved legal
determinations. Rodriguez-Arias, 915 F.3d at 972.
In considering Lemus’ challenges to the denial of CAT relief, we have reviewed the
administrative record, including the transcript of her 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); substantial evidence
supports the relevant factual findings, see Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020);

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and the agency committed no legal error in its adjudication of Lemus’ claim, Rodriguez-
Arias, 915 F.3d at 972. Accordingly, we uphold the denial of protection under the CAT.
In re Lemus-Mancia (B.I.A. July 7, 2020).
We therefore 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

-- 3 of 3 --