Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1705 JOHN SUNIL DOMMATI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1705 JOHN SUNIL DOMMATI, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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