Miguel De Leon Vivas v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 14-1639 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1639 MIGUEL BALTAZAR DE LEON VIVAS, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 2, 2014 Decided: December 16, 2014 Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Samuel P. Go, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Miguel Baltazar De Leon Vivas (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration protection under the thoroughly reviewed judge’s denial Convention the record, of Against his request Torture. including the We that the record evidence does not have transcript Petitioner’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. conclude for compel a of We ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), supports the Board’s decision. and that substantial evidence See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. May 30, 2014). See In re: De Leon Vivas (B.I.A. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.