Court Opinion

ID: 9412246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:02:08.066426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:33.619062
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1110      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1110

        KENNEDY ABANDE,

                             Petitioner,

                      v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                             Respondent.

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

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Godwill C. Tachi, TACHI LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for
        Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David J.
        Schor, Senior Lititgation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1110      Doc: 20         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kennedy Abande, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order

        of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Abande’s appeal from the immigration

        judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

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

               We have the reviewed the arguments Abande presses on appeal in light of the

        administrative record, including the transcript of Abande’s merits hearing and the

        supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. Despite Abande’s arguments to the

        contrary, 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 relief, see INS v.

        Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). See also Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207 (explaining

        that “omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently

        improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse credibility

        determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Abande (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2023).

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

               ∗
                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).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1110         Doc: 20    Filed: 07/27/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                          PETITION DENIED

                                                  3