
    Xiomara Yamileth HERNANDEZ-CEA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-1615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
    Decided: Feb. 13, 2015.
    Nathan A. Evans, Erin B. Ashwell, Woods Rogers PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Allison Frayer, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Xiomara Yamileth Hernandez-Cea, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Hernandez-Cea’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Tewabe v. Gon zales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir.2006). We farther conclude that a review of Hernandez-Cea’s independent corroborating evidence does not compel a different result.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Hernandez-Cea (B.I.A. May 22, 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. 
      
       The agency’s denial of Hernandez-Cea's request for protection under the Convention Against Torture is likewise supported by substantial evidence. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir.2007) (setting forth standard of review).
     