
    Oscar Anotnio MARTINEZ-GARCIA; Francisco Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. Oscar Anotnio Martinez-Garcia; Francisco Martinez-Garcia, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-2448, No. 17-1675
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 22, 2017
    Decided: January 11, 2018
    Evelyn R.G. Smallwood, HATCH ROCKERS IMMIGRATION, Durham, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Juria L. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Oscar A. Martinez-Garcia and Francisco Martinez-Garcia, brothers and natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their requests for asylum and withholding of removal, and denying their motion to reconsider.

With respect to the Board’s order dismissing the appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the 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) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2016). As no arguments have been raised on appeal with respect to the denial of the motion to reconsider, we dismiss the petition for review in part as to that order. See In re Martinez-Garcia (B.I.A. May 8, 2017); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (absent a miscarriage of justice, arguments not raised in opening brief are waived).

Accordingly, we deny in part, and dismiss in part, 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.

DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 
      
      On appeal, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture.
     