Mariya Airikyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1987
MARIYA YEVGENYEVNA AIRIKYAN,
Petitioner,
RUSTAM V. PACHEV,
Party in Interest,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 18, 2015
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mariya Yevgenyevna Airikyan, Petitioner Pro Se. Joyce R.
Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith Ian McManus,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Michele
Yvette Frances Sarko, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mariya Yevgenyevna Airikyan, a native of Armenia and a
citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum
and withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Airikyan’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), and that substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding. See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538
(4th Cir. 2006). We further conclude that a review of
Airikyan’s independent corroborating evidence does not compel a
different result.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Airikyan (B.I.A. Aug.
21, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
*
Airikyan does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue
is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2004).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3