Mushtaq Mohammad v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A072-054-787. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . [16-2334]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Chen, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Lisa M. Damiano, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Mushtaq Mohammad, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 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. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, the transcript of Mohammad’s merits hearing, and Mohammad’s
supporting affidavit and 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 decision. See
INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Mohammad (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?