Case Name: Fode Moustapha CAMARA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-25
Citations: 693 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 16-2008
Parties: Fode Moustapha CAMARA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
Fode Moustapha CAMARA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2008
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: July 25, 2017
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anna Juarez, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fode Moustapha Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing 'his appeal from the immigration judge's (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Camara's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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) (2012). We see no error in the Board's finding that the adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. We also conclude that the Board did not err by denying Camara's motion for clarification or by permitting the IJ to accept additional evidence on remand and to reassess the adverse credibility finding. Additionally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's denial of relief under the CAT. 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. 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