RAMIREZ PEREZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-03-30No. No. 20-1451

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied because substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Yorman M. Ramirez Perez, a Venezuelan national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court examined the full record, including hearing transcripts and evidence, and found no basis to overturn the administrative findings. The court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief, including an adverse credibility determination made by the immigration judge.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding
Whether the denial of asylum relief was supported by the record
Whether the denial of withholding of removal was appropriate

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought appellate review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Yorman M. Ramirez Perez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judges denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ramirez Perezs 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)—including the adverse credibility finding—and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief in this case, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Ramirez Perez (B.I.A. Mar. 19, 2020). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

. Ramirez Perez does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).

PER CURIAM:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.