Claudia Barrios de Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 468 F. App'x 209 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1526
CLAUDIA YESENIA BARRIOS DE MARTINEZ; D.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 15, 2012 Decided: March 5, 2012
Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, California, for Petitioners. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Stefanie A. Svoren, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Claudia Yesenia Barrios de Martinez, and her son, D.M.
(collectively Petitioners), natives and citizens of El Salvador,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Barrios de Martinez is the primary applicant for asylum and the
claims of her son are derivative of her application. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2011). For
the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse
the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
2
requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see also Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding.
We further conclude that Barrios de Martinez failed to establish
that she was targeted by Mara Salvatrucha gang members on
account of a protected ground. See Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d
440, 447 (4th Cir. 2011). We therefore uphold the denial of her
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum —
even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an
applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Additionally, Barrios de Martinez challenges the
denial of her request for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. To qualify for such protection, a petitioner
bears the burden of proof of showing “it is more likely than not
that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
3
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011). Based on
our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the denial of her request for relief. See Dankam v.
Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth
standard of review).
We therefore deny the petition for review.* We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
*
Although it appears that the immigration judge completed
the proceedings in Atlanta, Georgia, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2)
(2006), we decline to exercise our inherent authority to
transfer the case to the Eleventh Circuit as we find it would
not be in the interest of justice to do so. See Sorcia v.
Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 122-24 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S.
Ct. 776 (2011). Additionally, we have reviewed the Petitioners’
due process claim, and find that Petitioners fail to demonstrate
the requisite prejudice. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256
(4th Cir. 2008); Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320.
4