UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1760 ESTERCILA LOURDES MARTINEZ-ROMERO; L.V.M.M., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 29, 2019 Decided: September 12, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred L. Robertson, Jr., ROBERTSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Estercila Lourdes Martinez-Romero and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to rule to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad—though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility findings. Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2012)). Because the Board adopted and affirmed the 1 The Petitioners do not challenge the Board’s finding that they waived review of the IJ’s denial of protection under the CAT or the resolution of their ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, those issues are not before us. See Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that petitioner’s failure to address Board’s denial of CAT relief waives the issue); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (except in rare cases, failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of issue). 2 IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed the record, including Martinez-Romero’s testimony, and conclude that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 206. In light of the adverse credibility finding and the lack of detailed independent evidence, the Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground. See Oliva v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 53, 59 (4th Cir. 2015) (noting that alien must show that a protected ground is a central reason for the persecution). We conclude that the agency’s denial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals