Christian Sarmiento-Romero; Eder Jose Sarmiento-Romero v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1253
CHRISTIAN SARMIENTO-ROMERO; EDER JOSE SARMIENTO-ROMERO,
Petitioners,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: James A. Rivera, THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES RIVERA, PLLC,
Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah A.
Byrd, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephanie L. Groff, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Christian Sarmiento-Romero and Eder Jose Sarmiento-Romero, natives and citizens
of Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their applications for
asylum and withholding of removal.∗ We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners challenge the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, which the
Board affirmed on clear error review. 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).
We have reviewed this issue in light of the administrative record, including the
transcript of Petitioners’ removal hearing and the supporting evidence, and the relevant
legal authorities. Despite Petitioners’ argument to the contrary, 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 finding, and that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992);
see also Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207 (explaining that “omissions, inconsistent statements,
∗ Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT) or the immigration judge’s finding of insufficient
corroboration. Accordingly, they have forfeited these issues. See Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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. 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

-- 3 of 3 --