Mark Thomas v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 592 F. App'x 205 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-1621
    MARK NATHANIEL THOMAS, a/k/a Mark Thomas,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   January 20, 2015               Decided:   February 3, 2015
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
    Virginia, for Petitioner.    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
    Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn
    M. McKinney, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Mark    Nathaniel       Thomas,          a     native       and    citizen         of
    Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from
    the   Immigration     Judge’s       denial      of       his    requests       for       asylum,
    withholding    of     removal     and    protection             under    the     Convention
    Against Torture.           We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
    conclude    that    the    record    evidence            does   not     compel       a    ruling
    contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8
    U.S.C.   § 1252(b)(4)(B)         (2012),       and       that    substantial         evidence
    supports the Board’s decision.                 See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992).             Accordingly, we deny the petition for
    review for the reasons stated by the Board.                           See In re: Thomas
    (B.I.A. May 28, 2014).            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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1621

Citation Numbers: 592 F. App'x 205

Filed Date: 2/3/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023