Kennedy Abande v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 23-1110
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1110 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1110

KENNEDY ABANDE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Godwill C. Tachi, TACHI LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David J. Schor, Senior Lititgation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1110 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Kennedy Abande, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Abande’s appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We have the reviewed the arguments Abande presses on appeal in light of the

administrative record, including the transcript of Abande’s merits hearing and the

supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. Despite Abande’s arguments 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, 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. In re Abande (B.I.A. Jan. 10, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

∗ 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).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1110 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED