Opinion
23-1110
07-27-2023
KENNEDY ABANDE, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Godwill C. Tachi, TACHI LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David J. Schor, Senior Lititgation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 25, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Godwill C. Tachi, TACHI LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David J. Schor, Senior Lititgation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Kennedy Abande, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Abande's appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
We have the reviewed the arguments Abande presses on appeal in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Abande's merits hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. Despite Abande's arguments to the contrary, 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 findingand 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)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. In re Abande (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 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
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).