Emmanuela Takoh v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-520-637. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000054340]. [16-1982]

Appeal: 16-1982

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1982

EMMANUELA THE TAKOH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: March 23, 2017

Decided: April 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward W. Neufville, III, LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD W. NEUFVILLE, III, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anthony O. Pottinger,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1982

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Emmanuela The Takoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons
set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
We will uphold the Board’s order unless it is manifestly contrary to the law and an
abuse of discretion. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011). The standard
of review of the agency’s findings is narrow and deferential.

Factual findings are

affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence exists to support
a finding unless the evidence was such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence and give
broad deference to such a finding. The agency must provide specific, cogent reasons for
making an adverse credibility determination. Id. We conclude that substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.

Concerning Takoh’s claim that

independent corroborative evidence established eligibility for withholding of removal and
protection under the CAT, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Takoh’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the
record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s

2

Appeal: 16-1982

Doc: 22

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

decision, INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review.
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

3