Ashraf Khan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1442
ASHRAF KHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 12, 2022 Decided: August 3, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin
R. Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ashraf Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed
Khan’s arguments in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Khan’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), and that substantial evidence supports the
denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
On appeal, the Board found, based on the totality of the circumstances, no clear
error in the IJ’s adverse credibility ruling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Upon review,
we hold that substantial evidence supports this determination. See Ilunga v. Holder, 777
F.3d 199, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “omissions, inconsistent statements,
contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for
making an adverse credibility determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re
Khan (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2021). 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 of 2 --