Imran Gaya v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 589 F. App'x 144 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1308
IMRAN ARIF GAYA; ZAHIDA IMRAN; MARYAM GAYA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 5, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karen H. Pennington, LAW OFFICE OF KAREN H. PENNINGTON, Dallas,
Texas, for Petitioners. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Lynda A.
Do, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Imran Arif Gaya, and his wife and daughter, petition
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying their requests for asylum, withholding
of deportation, and withholding under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 1 Gaya and his family are natives and citizens
of Pakistan. The Board found that the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding was not clearly erroneous. The Board also agreed with
the IJ that Gaya did not establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution, independent of his past persecution
claim. We note that Gaya’s brief does not contain arguments and
contentions challenging the Board’s conclusion that he is not
entitled to the presumption that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution, with citations to authorities and the record.
Thus, the claim is abandoned. 2 See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder,
714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the testimony
offered by Gaya and his expert witness, and conclude that
1
Gaya’s wife and daughter participate in this petition as
derivative beneficiaries to Gaya’s claims for relief.
2
We also note that Gaya does not challenge the denial of
protection under the CAT. Accordingly, that claim is also
abandoned.
2
substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Gaya did
not establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution
independent of his claim that he suffered past persecution. See
INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Thus, the
record does not compel a finding that Gaya is eligible for
asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). Because
substantial evidence supports the finding that Gaya is not
eligible for asylum, he is also not eligible for withholding of
removal. Camara v. Holder, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
We also conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Gaya’s motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477
F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007).
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