Juan Ortiz Alvarado v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1951

JUAN ORTIZ ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 17, 2020 Decided: March 30, 2020

Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Lincoln Robertson, Jr., ROBERTSON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Springfield, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant
Director, Aric A. Anderson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Juan Ortiz Alvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including
the transcript of Alvarado’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that
the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual
findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2018), and that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s decision, see Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009); Dankam v.
Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, we find Alvarado’s due process
claim to be unavailing because he fails to show that the alleged errors impacted the outcome
of his case. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); accord Rusu v. INS,
296 F.3d 316, 320-22 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Alvarado (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2019). 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