UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2512

OLGA MARITZA HERNANDEZ-PERDOMO; B. S. V-H,

 Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 15, 2020 Decided: February 24, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Olga Maritza Hernandez-Perdomo (Hernandez) and her minor son, natives and 

citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

dismissing Hernandez’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for 

withholding of removal.1

 We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed Hernandez’s arguments on appeal in light of the administrative 

record, including the transcript of Hernandez’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence, 

and the relevant legal authorities. 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)—including the adverse credibility finding2

—and that substantial evidence 

supports the denial of withholding of removal, see Cortez-Mendez, 912 F.3d at 208–11 

(conducting substantial-evidence review of the agency’s denial of petitioner’s claim for 

withholding of removal). Specifically, the Board agreed with the main groupings of 

inconsistencies identified by the Immigration Judge in reaching the adverse credibility 

determination and held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there was no clear 

error in that ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (setting 

 1 Hernandez challenges neither the denial of her application for protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT) nor the finding that her asylum application was timebarred. So these issues are waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. 

Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioner’s failure to address 

the denial of CAT relief waived the issue).

2 We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad—

though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility findings. Ilunga v. Holder, 

777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
3

forth the Board’s standard of review for factual findings, including credibility 

determinations). Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports this 

determination. See Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207 (recognizing that “omissions, inconsistent 

statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate 

bases for making an adverse credibility determination” (quoting Djadjou v. Holder, 662 

F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011)); Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321, 329 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(explaining that an adverse credibility determination need not be based “solely on those 

matters fundamental to an alien’s claim for relief”).

So we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

Hernanadez-Perdomo, B.I.A., A206-803-682 (Nov. 29, 2018). 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