Elvin Omar Romero-Lopez; Angela Johany Romero-Rivera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2090
ELVIN OMAR ROMERO-LOPEZ; ANGELA JOHANY ROMERO-RIVERA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: September 5, 2024
Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John W. Goodman, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, MURRAY OSORIO
PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Attorney
General, Zoe J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Erik R. Quick, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elvin Omar Romero-Lopez and his daughter, natives and citizens of Honduras,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Romero-Lopez’s
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that there was no
error in the Board’s analysis of the IJ’s findings that Romero-Lopez did not show that the
Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him from his persecutors. See
Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating proper standard
when private actor is source of persecution or fear of persecution). We also conclude that
the Petitioners fail to show that the Board engaged in improper factfinding. We have also
considered the Petitioners’ claim that the Board failed to consider that one of Romero-
Lopez’s alleged persecutors was a government official acting under color of law and find
the claim lacks merit.
Accordingly, we 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

-- 2 of 2 --