Filimon Garcia-Sandoval v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2271
FILIMON GARCIA-SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 23, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Nash Fayad, FAYAD LAW, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian
Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Kevin J. Conway, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Filimon Garcia-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for
review.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the evidence does not
compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, 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). We conclude that the Board did not err in finding that
Garcia-Sandoval did not establish that he had an objectively reasonable well-founded fear
of persecution. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that
Garcia-Sandoval did not demonstrate for protection under the CAT that he was more likely
than not to be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government.
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 --