Dina Abigail Vasquez Ramos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1553
DINA ABIGAIL VASQUEZ RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 28, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023
Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian
M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, David J.
Schor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dina Abigail Vasquez Ramos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of
removal.* After thoroughly reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments,
we discern no reversible error in the Board’s decision. See Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597,
602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining our standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Vasquez Ramos (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2022).
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
* The immigration judge also denied Vasquez Ramos’ application for protection
under the Convention Against Torture. The Board ruled that Vasquez Ramos had waived
review of that denial by failing to meaningfully challenge it on appeal. Vasquez Ramos’
opening brief in this court does not contest the Board’s ruling. Vasquez Ramos has thus
forfeited our review of the denial of her application for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. See United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 685 (4th Cir. 2018)
(recognizing that issue not raised in opening brief is forfeited).

-- 2 of 2 --