Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1205
MARVIN ANIBAL MURRILLO GUARDADO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 18, 2022 Decided: February 25, 2022
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado, Petitioner Pro Se. Brian Boynton, Acting Attorney
General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marvin Anibal Murrillo Guardado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to
any of the administrative factual findings, see U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Because the Board’s finding that Guardado’s proposed particular social group is not
cognizable is dispositive on the issue of whether Guardado is entitled to withholding of
removal, it is unnecessary for this court to review Guardado’s other issues relating to that
form of relief from removal. We further find that the denial of protection under the CAT
is supported by substantial evidence. Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 972 (4th
Cir. 2019) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for
the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Guardado (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2021). 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 --