Lucy Tantoh Taku v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2127 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2127

LUCY TANTOH TAKU,

Petitioner,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 13, 2026 Decided: July 21, 2026

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steffanie Jones Lewis, THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-2127 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Lucy Tantoh Taku, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge (“IJ”)’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the

petition for review.

When the Board adopts or supplements an IJ’s decision, this Court “review[s] both

decisions.” Diaz v. Blanche, 173 F.4th 499, 505 (4th Cir. 2026). We review legal

conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Cordova v. Holder, 759

F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014). Under this standard, “even if the record plausibly could

support two results: the one the IJ chose and the one the petitioner advances, reversal is

only appropriate where the court finds that the evidence not only supports the opposite

conclusion, but compels it.” Marquez v. Bondi, 160 F.4th 418, 426 (4th Cir. 2025) (quoting

Tang v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2016)).

First, Taku argues that the IJ failed to consider the totality of the circumstances in

making an adverse credibility determination. “An adverse credibility determination is

supported by substantial evidence so long as the record as a whole supports it by ‘more

than a mere scintilla’ of evidence.” Ayala-Osegueda v. Garland, 92 F.4th 220, 227 (4th

Cir. 2024) (quoting Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2022)). Since

the IJ offered numerous cogent reasons to support the finding, there is substantial evidence

to support the adverse credibility determination. See Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291,

298 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[o]missions, inconsistent statements, contradictory

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2127 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse

credibility determination”).

Second, Taku argues that, regardless of the adverse credibility finding, there is

sufficient corroborating evidence to support her asylum claim. Taku submitted affidavits

and letters from friends and family. But the Board provided cogent reasons for discrediting

this evidence, and those reasons are supported by the record. Taku’s other evidence falls

short of establishing a cognizable claim of past persecution or a fear of future persecution.

Therefore, Taku has failed to independently verify her claims.

Third, Taku argues against the denial of her CAT claim. But an IJ cannot find an

applicant and her documents incredible for one purpose and rely on them for another. Zuh

v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504, 513 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, because the Board’s adverse

credibility and corroborating evidence findings are supported by substantial evidence,

Taku has failed to meet her burden to sustain her claim for protection under CAT since

each claim rests on the same set of facts.

Finally, Taku argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. However,

Taku failed to satisfy any of the three requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada to support

such a claim. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745–46 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Matter

of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988)). Therefore, she is not “in substantial

compliance” with that test, and we will not reach the merits of her claim. Id. at 746.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-2127 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

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