Jean Nana v. Jefferson Sessions III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-348-665 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [17-1337]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEAN CLAUDE NANA,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: September 21, 2017
Decided: October 12, 2017
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Juria L. Jones, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Jean Claude Nana, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the
record, including the transcript of Nana’s merits hearing 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 Nana, (B.I.A. Feb. 17, 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.
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?