Ashraf Khan v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-1442 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1442 ASHRAF KHAN, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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
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.
