Paulina Reyes-Rodriguez; K.v.r. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2373
PAULINA REYES-RODRIGUEZ; K.V.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 26, 2022 Decided: September 6, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, André Matias, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paulina Reyes-Rodriguez (Reyes) and her minor daughter, K.V.R. (collectively,
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.* We deny the
petition for review.
We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits
hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments pressed on appeal in
conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We first conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the relevant factual findings, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
dispositive rulings, which the Board affirmed. As to the proffered legal issues, which we
review de novo, see Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir. 2021), we
discern no error in the agency’s conclusions that Reyes’ (a) alleged persecutors did not
levy a “plain and unambiguous” death threat against her that would qualify as past
persecution, Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020); and (b) claimed fear of
future persecution was not objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances of this
case, see, e.g., Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 398 (4th Cir. 2010) (observing that
* Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App.
P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining
that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
evidence establishing that alleged persecutors had not harmed similarly situated family
members living in applicant’s home country “fatally undermines” objective reasonableness
of applicant’s feared future persecution); see also, e.g., Perez-Morales v. Barr, 781 F.
App’x 192, 198 (4th Cir. 2019) (No. 18-1617) (argued but unpublished) (recognizing that,
where alleged death threats were levied against applicant’s whole family, the fact that
applicant’s siblings were unharmed in his home country was relevant to future persecution
analysis). Finally, we conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying
Reyes’ application for humanitarian asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) (2022).
Accord Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540, 550 (8th Cir. 2009) (providing standard of
review for the denial of humanitarian asylum).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Reyes-Rodriguez (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 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

-- 3 of 3 --