Palash D Costa v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-601-790,A206-601-791,A206-601-792,A206-601-793 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000150305].. [17-1097]

Appeal: 17-1097

Doc: 35

Filed: 09/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1097

PALASH BENEDICT D COSTA; MAGDALINA MITHUN D COSTA; A.J.D.;
A.C.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: August 22, 2017

Decided: September 6, 2017

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Piston, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Imran R. Zaidi, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1097

Doc: 35

Filed: 09/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Palash Benedict D Costa, Magdalina Mithun D Costa, A.J.D., and A.C.D., natives
and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of the merits hearing before the
immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does
not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative 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.
In re D Costa (B.I.A. Dec. 27, 2017). 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

2