Jose Ramos-Escobar v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-1408
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1408 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1408

JOSE FREDY RAMOS-ESCOBAR,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: November 29, 2022 Decided: March 2, 2023

Before KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1408 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

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.