794 Fed.Appx. 334 (4th Cir. 2020), 18-2512, Hernandez-Perdomo v. Barr

Docket Nº:18-2512
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 334
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Olga Maritza HERNANDEZ-PERDOMO; B. S. V-H, Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for R...
Judge Panel:Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 334

794 Fed.Appx. 334 (4th Cir. 2020)

Olga Maritza HERNANDEZ-PERDOMO; B. S. V-H, Petitioners,

v.

William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 18-2512

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: January 15, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

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

John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioners.

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Olga Maritza Hernandez-Perdomo (Hernandez) and her minor son, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Hernandez’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for withholding of removal.1 We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed Hernandez’s arguments on appeal in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Hernandez’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant legal authorities. 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)— including the adverse credibility finding2 — and that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, see

Cortez-Mendez, 912 F.3d at 208-11 (conducting substantial-evidence review of the agency’s denial of petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal). Specifically, the Board agreed with the main groupings of inconsistencies identified by the Immigration Judge in reaching the adverse credibility determination and held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there was no clear error in that ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (setting forth the Board’s standard of review for factual findings, including credibility determinations). Upon review, we conclude that substantial evidence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP