Kokouvi Amouzou v. Jefferson Sessions III

714 F. App'x 278
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 13, 2018
Docket17-1924
StatusUnpublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 278 (Kokouvi Amouzou v. Jefferson Sessions III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kokouvi Amouzou v. Jefferson Sessions III, 714 F. App'x 278 (4th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kokouvi Amouzou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board Of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Amouzou’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Amouzou’s conviction was a particularly serious crime. See Gao v. Holder, 595 F.3d 549, 556-57 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting standard of review). We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Amouzou failed to establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (stating standard of review). Additionally, because Amouzou failed to substantially comply with the requirements under In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), we will not review his claim that counsel was ineffective. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745-47 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny Amouzou’s motion to reconsider the order denying his motion for stay. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zhan Gao v. Holder
595 F.3d 549 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)
LOZADA
19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
714 F. App'x 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kokouvi-amouzou-v-jefferson-sessions-iii-ca4-2018.