Ramesh Pande v. Merrick Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 6, 2023
Docket22-1774
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ramesh Pande v. Merrick Garland (Ramesh Pande v. Merrick Garland) 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
Ramesh Pande v. Merrick Garland, (4th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1774 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1774

RAMESH PANDE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: March 17, 2023 Decided: October 6, 2023

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1774 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ramesh Pande, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s

decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. ∗ We deny the

petition for review.

Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that substantial evidence

supports the adverse credibility finding. See Munyakazi v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 291, 298

(4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). The immigration judge identified a specific

and cogent reason for rejecting Pande’s testimony. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273

(4th Cir. 2011). 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 in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

∗ Pande does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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

Related

Djadjou v. Holder
662 F.3d 265 (Fourth Circuit, 2011)
Leopold Munyakazi v. Loretta Lynch
829 F.3d 291 (Fourth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ramesh Pande v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramesh-pande-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2023.