Opinion
22-1408
03-02-2023
JOSE FREDY RAMOS-ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 29, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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.
Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.