Case Name: Mushtaq MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 690 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 16-2334
Parties: Mushtaq MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 111–111

Head Matter:
Mushtaq MOHAMMAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2334
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Richard W. Chen, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa M. Damiano, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mushtaq Mohammad, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the transcript of Mohammad's merits hearing, and Mohammad's supporting affidavit and 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. See 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 for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Mohammad (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016). 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