Court Opinion

ID: 9905158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:51.149594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:52.822558
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1415      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1415

        IRMA MONRROY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring,
        Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Madeline Henley, Office of Immigration Litigation,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1415       Doc: 22         Filed: 11/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Irma Monrroy, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of

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

        judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 We

        deny the petition for review.

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

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

        supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. 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 2—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)).

               1
                 Monrroy does not challenge the denial of her request for protection under the
        Convention Against Torture and therefore has forfeited review of this issue. See Fed. R.
        App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that
        a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs);
        see also Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l, LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party
        waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to develop its
        argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (cleaned up)).
               2
                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: 23-1415         Doc: 22     Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In

        re Monrroy (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2023).

              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

                                                   3