Obed Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch , 610 F. App'x 260 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2367
OBED RAMOS HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 6, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Brendan P.
Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Obed Ramos Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”), dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding him removable and denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for
review. *
Hernandez first challenges his removability as an alien
convicted of an act involving moral turpitude, arguing that his
forgery conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. It
is uncontested, however, that Hernandez is removable for having
entered this country without being admitted or paroled. See 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2012). Accordingly, we need not
consider whether he is also removable on other grounds.
Hernandez also challenges the denial of his request for
withholding of removal. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). A
determination regarding eligibility for withholding of removal is
affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record
* Hernandez does not challenge the denial of asylum or
protection under the CAT. Thus, review of those decisions is
waived. Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir.
2013).
2
considered as a whole. INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Hernandez did not meet his burden of proof for withholding of
removal.
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
3