Elmer Francisco Jerez Bojorquez, a/k/a Jerez Elmer Bohorquez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1697
ELMER FRANCISCO JEREZ BOJORQUEZ, a/k/a Jerez Elmer
Bohorquez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 21, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert
Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Elmer Francisco Jerez Bojorquez, a native and citizen
of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal of the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Bojorquez’s application
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have thoroughly examined the record
and deny the petition for review.
When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must
uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible
for withholding of removal unless the Board’s determination is
“‘manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of
discretion.’” Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir.
2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal
questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while
the Board’s factual findings “are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Crespin-Valladares
v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the
Board’s determination regarding eligibility for withholding of
removal will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
An alien is eligible for withholding of removal if he
shows that, if he was returned to his native country, “it is
more likely than not that [his] ‘life or freedom would be
threatened because of [his] race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.’” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006)) (internal
alteration omitted). Here, our review of the record convinces
us that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion
that the Guatemala-related incidents marshaled by Bojorquez
failed to establish by a preponderance that he would be harmed
if returned to El Salvador. We likewise find without merit
Bojorquez’s challenge to the denial of his CAT claim.
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 of 3 --