Court Opinion

ID: 9376786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 21:00:25.703295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:09.369932
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1408      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1408

        JOSE FREDY RAMOS-ESCOBAR,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: March 2, 2023

        Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for
        Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J.
        Flynn, Assistant Director, Lynda A. Do, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1408         Doc: 25        Filed: 03/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Petitioner Jose Fredy Ramos-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

        for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the

        immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of

        removal. ∗ We deny the petition for review.

                  Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that it does not compel a

        reasonable adjudicator to find contrary to the relevant factual findings. See Kourouma v.

        Holder, 588 F.3d 234, 239–40 (4th Cir. 2009). The agency’s adverse credibility finding

        was supported by substantial evidence and identified “specific cogent reasons for why”

        Ramos-Escobar’s testimony was not credible. Id. at 241. And because Ramos-Escobar

        could not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily

        failed.

                  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 in the

        decisional process.

                                                                                PETITION DENIED

               Petitioner does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the
                  ∗

        Convention Against Torture.

                                                       2