Fode Camara v. Jefferson Sessions III , 693 F. App'x 245 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2008
FODE MOUSTAPHA CAMARA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 22, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anna Juarez, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fode Moustapha Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Camara’s merits hearing and
all supporting evidence. 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) (2012).
We see no error in the Board’s finding that the adverse credibility finding was not clearly
erroneous. We also conclude that the Board did not err by denying Camara’s motion for
clarification or by permitting the IJ to accept additional evidence on remand and to reassess
the adverse credibility finding. Additionally, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s denial of relief under the CAT. 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