Kokouvi Amouzou v. Jefferson Sessions III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to reconsider [1000154890-2] Originating case number: A063-012-324 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000256655]. Mailed to: Kokouvi Amouzou. [17-1924]

Appeal: 17-1924

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/13/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1924

KOKOUVI AMOUZOU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: March 13, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kokouvi Amouzou, Petitioner Pro Se. Chad A. Readler, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman,
Jennifer Parker Levings, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1924

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/13/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kokouvi Amouzou, a native and citizen of Togo, 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 (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record, including the transcript of Amouzou’s merits hearing before the immigration
court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel
a ruling contrary to the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012), and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Amouzou’s conviction
was a particularly serious crime. See Gao v. Holder, 595 F.3d 549, 556-57 (4th Cir. 2010)
(noting standard of review). We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Amouzou failed to establish eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT.
See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (stating standard of review).
Additionally, because Amouzou failed to substantially comply with the requirements under
In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), we will not review his claim that counsel
was ineffective.

See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745-47 (4th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny Amouzou’s motion to
reconsider the order denying his motion for stay. 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