Maria Gloria Vasquez-Mebo v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1745
MARIA GLORIA VASQUEZ-MEBO,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 16, 2026 Decided: May 14, 2026
Before THACKER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maria Gloria Vasquez-Mebo, Petitioner Pro Se. Rachel Louise Browning, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maria Gloria Vasquez-Mebo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying the relief of deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordering her removal from the United States.
We have considered Vasquez-Mebo’s challenges to the denial of deferral of removal
under the CAT. To be granted that relief, Vasquez-Mebo must demonstrate that it is more
likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to Peru. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)
(2025). Because this Court reviews the denial of relief under the CAT for substantial
evidence, “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Bar, 590 U.S. 573, 584
(2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Relevant legal determinations are subject to
de novo review. Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). Upon review, we
find that the record evidence does not compel reversal of the agency’s denial of relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Vasquez-Mebo (B.I.A. July 12,
2024). 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 --