Court Opinion

ID: 9353833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 21:01:22.558938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:06.195735
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1163      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1163

        SHOVA KANTA LAMICHHANE,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 13, 2022                                      Decided: January 11, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dilli Raj Bhatta, BHATTA LAW & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York,
        for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica A.
        Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alanna Thanh Duong, Trial Attorney, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1163      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/11/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Shova Kanta Lamichhane, a native and citizen of Nepal, 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 and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

        administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence

        supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (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

                                                     2