Emmanuela Takoh v. Jefferson Sessions III

683 F. App'x 228

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2017
• Docket: 16-1982
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuela The Takoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.

We will uphold the Board’s order unless it is manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011). The standard of review of the agency’s findings is narrow and deferential. Factual findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence and give broad deference to such a finding. The agency must provide specific, cogent reasons for making an adverse credibility determination. Id. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. Concerning Takoh’s claim that independent corroborative evidence established eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Takoh’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, I.N.S. 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.

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