Marina Gradinaru; Vitalie Osoianu v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1651
MARINA GRADINARU; VITALIE OSOIANU,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: February 14, 2018
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Rose, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kimberly A. Burdge,
Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marina Gradinaru and her husband, derivative beneficiary Vitalie Osoianu, natives
of the former Soviet Union and citizens of Moldova, petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of Gradinaru’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We
have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcripts of Gradinaru’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)—including the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
finding2—and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief in this case, 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 Gradinaru (B.I.A. May 8, 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
1 We lack jurisdiction to address Petitioners’ challenges to the immigration judge’s
denial of Gradinaru’s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture
because Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Board. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).
2 We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad—
though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility findings. Ilunga v. Holder,
777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004).

-- 2 of 2 --