Opinion
No. 17-1659
01-24-2018
LAMIN Y. JATTA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lamin Y. Jatta, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Jatta's merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Jatta gave false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and is therefore statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Jatta (B.I.A. May 1, 2017). 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