Christian Sarmiento-Romero v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1253

CHRISTIAN SARMIENTO-ROMERO; EDER JOSE SARMIENTO-ROMERO, Petitioners,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James A. Rivera, THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES RIVERA, PLLC, Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah A. Byrd, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephanie L. Groff, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Christian Sarmiento-Romero and Eder Jose Sarmiento-Romero, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. ∗ We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners challenge the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, which the Board affirmed on clear error review. 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).

We have reviewed this issue in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Petitioners’ removal hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. Despite Petitioners’ argument 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 finding, and 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,

∗

Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) or the immigration judge’s finding of insufficient corroboration. Accordingly, they have forfeited these issues. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019).

3

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. 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