Irfan v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1004
ALI IRFAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ali Irfan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
order denying as a matter of discretion Irfan’s application for
asylum and granting him withholding from removal. We deny the
petition for review.
The discretionary denial of asylum is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Zuh v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504, 506 (4th
Cir. 2008). This standard of review “does not offer an IJ a
blank check.” Id. The decision to deny asylum can only be made
after the immigration judge has considered the totality of the
circumstances. Id. at 507. Since the Petitioner has shown
eligibility for asylum, it is assumed that the danger of
persecution will outweigh all but the most egregious adverse
factors. Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 119 n.2 (4th Cir.
2007).
We find the immigration judge considered the totality
of the circumstances and did not abuse her discretion when she
determined that as a matter of discretion, she would deny asylum
to Irfan. We note the immigration judge found Irfan did have a
well founded fear of persecution if he returned to Pakistan.
However, because he was granted withholding from removal, he
will not be removed to that country.
2
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3