UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1049

NOZIMJON KHOLMURODOV,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: January 26, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allison N. Grosz, BIBICHEFF & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Brooklyn, New York, for 

Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, 

Assistant Director, Jennifer A. Bowen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1049 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nozimjon Kholmurodov, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Kholmurodov’s appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review 

in part and dismiss it in part. 

We have the reviewed the arguments that Kholmurodov presses on appeal in light 

of the administrative record, including the transcript of Kholmurodov’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 finding*

—and that 

substantial evidence supports the denial of all forms of relief in this case, see INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Specifically, the Board confirmed the evidentiary inconsistencies identified by the 

immigration judge and held, based on the totality of the circumstances, that there was no 

clear error in the immigration judge’s adverse credibility ruling. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2021). Our review of the record confirms 

that substantial evidence supports this determination. See Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207 

(explaining that “omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and 

* 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).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1049 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse credibility 

determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that Kholmurodov 

separately challenges the denial of protection under the CAT, we discern no legal error in 

the adjudication of that application and, again, find that substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s factual rulings pertaining to it. Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968, 972 

(4th Cir. 2019) (providing standard of review for denial of CAT relief).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the 

Board. In re Kholmurodov (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2020). We dismiss the petition as to 

Kholmurodov’s claim that the immigration judge conducted his hearing in a manner that 

violated Kholmurodov’s right to due process on the ground that Kholmurodov failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Cabrera 

v. Barr, 930 F.3d 627, 631 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[A]rguments that a petitioner did not raise in 

the [Board] proceedings have not been exhausted and [we] lack[ ] jurisdiction to consider 

them.”). 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 IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1049 Doc: 24 Filed: 01/26/2022 Pg: 3 of 3