Court Opinion

ID: 9889274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-07 21:00:25.252374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:01.951473
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1774      Doc: 38         Filed: 10/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1774

        RAMESH PANDE,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: March 17, 2023                                         Decided: October 6, 2023

        Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian
        Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation
        Counsel, Edward C. Durant, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1774      Doc: 38         Filed: 10/06/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ramesh Pande, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of an order of the

        Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s

        decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. ∗ We deny the

        petition for review.

               Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that substantial evidence

        supports the adverse credibility finding. See Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291, 298

        (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). The immigration judge identified a specific

        and cogent reason for rejecting Pande’s testimony. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273

        (4th Cir. 2011). 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 in the decisional process.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

               ∗
                Pande does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the
        Convention Against Torture.

                                                    2