Jose Ramos-Escobar v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-1408      Doc: 25         Filed: 03/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-1408
    JOSE FREDY RAMOS-ESCOBAR,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Submitted: November 29, 2022                                      Decided: March 2, 2023
    Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for
    Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J.
    Flynn, Assistant Director, Lynda A. Do, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1408         Doc: 25        Filed: 03/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Petitioner Jose Fredy Ramos-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
    for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
    removal. ∗ We deny the petition for review.
    Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that it does not compel a
    reasonable adjudicator to find contrary to the relevant factual findings. See Kourouma v.
    Holder, 
    588 F.3d 234
    , 239–40 (4th Cir. 2009). The agency’s adverse credibility finding
    was supported by substantial evidence and identified “specific cogent reasons for why”
    Ramos-Escobar’s testimony was not credible. 
    Id. at 241
    . And because Ramos-Escobar
    could not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily
    failed.
    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
    Petitioner does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the
    ∗
    Convention Against Torture.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1408

Filed Date: 3/2/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2023