Mariya Airikyan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-650-773,A200-650-774 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999548119]. Mailed to: Airkyan and Pachev. [14-1987]

Appeal: 14-1987

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1987

MARIYA YEVGENYEVNA AIRIKYAN,
Petitioner,
RUSTAM V. PACHEV,
Party in Interest,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 18, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mariya Yevgenyevna Airikyan, Petitioner Pro Se.
Joyce R.
Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith Ian McManus,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Michele
Yvette Frances Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1987

Doc: 13

Filed: 03/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mariya

Yevgenyevna

Airikyan,

a

native

of

Armenia

and

a

citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the
Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

her

appeal

from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum
and withholding of removal. *

We have thoroughly reviewed the

record, including the transcript of Airikyan’s merits hearing
and

all

evidence

supporting
does

evidence.

not

compel

a

We
ruling

conclude

that

contrary

to

the
any

record
of

the

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012),

and

that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

adverse

credibility finding.

See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538

(4th

We

Cir.

2006).

further

conclude

that

a

review

of

Airikyan’s independent corroborating evidence does not compel a
different result.
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

reasons stated by the Board.
21, 2014).
legal

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Airikyan (B.I.A. Aug.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

Airikyan does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
Accordingly, review of that issue
is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2004).

2

Appeal: 14-1987

before

Doc: 13

this

court

Filed: 03/18/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

3