John Dommati v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 18-1705 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1705 JOHN SUNIL DOMMATI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 6, 2018 Decided: September 14, 2018 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Sunil Dommati, Petitioner Pro Se. Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Sunil Dommati, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits and the transcript of Dommati’s merits hearing. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, while we grant Dommati’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Dommati (B.I.A. June 7, 2018). We deny as moot Dommati’s motions to appoint counsel, to supplement the record with reports, and for a stay of removal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
