Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0186-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Khadra Sheik Ahmed MOHAMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 19, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 17, 2003.
    Larry L. Lewis, Law Offices of J.W. Nesari, L.L.C., Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation, Michael T. Dougherty, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Khadra Sheik Ahmed Mohamed, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Mohamed takes issue with the IJ’s negative credibility finding. She contends that she qualifies for relief even assuming that her claim of rape is false and maintains that the rape was not central to her claim. She further asserts that the credibility determination was in error because the IJ failed to take cultural considerations into account, she provided a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy on the rape claim, and the evidence in fact supports her rape claim.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in light of the IJ’s findings and conclude that Mohamed’s assertions are without merit. As the negative credibility determination is supported by the record and is entitled to deference, Mohamed does not qualify for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir.2002); Matter of S-A-, Int. Dec. 3433, 2000 WL 827754 (BIA 2000); Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106, 1998 WL 99553 (BIA 1998).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.