Paola Vanessa Melendez-Calderon v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2068
PAOLA VANESSA MELENDEZ-CALDERON,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 20, 2024 Decided: August 27, 2024
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Eric R. Suarez, SANABRIA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brooke M. Maurer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Paola Vanessa Melendez-Calderon, 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 denial of Melendez-Calderon’s applications for asylum and
withholding of removal.* We have reviewed the record and Melendez-Calderon’s claims
and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative factual findings, see 8 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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Melendez-Calderon (B.I.A. Sept. 15,
2023). 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
* Melendez-Calderon also challenges the denial of protection under the Convention
Against Torture, a claim she failed to exhaust before the Board. Because the Attorney
General has properly invoked the exhaustion requirement specified in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1), we decline to consider this argument. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598
U.S. 411, 413, 419 (2023); Trejo Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213-14 (4th Cir. 2023).

-- 2 of 2 --