UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1231
KHADRA SHEIK AHMED MOHAMED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-419-457)
Submitted: August 19, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry L. Lewis, LAW OFFICES OF J.W. NESARI, L.L.C., Herndon,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Michael T. Dougherty, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Khadra Sheik Ahmed Mohamed, a native and citizen of Somalia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Mohamed takes issue with the IJ’s negative credibility
finding. She contends that she qualifies for relief even assuming
that her claim of rape is false and maintains that the rape was not
central to her claim. She further asserts that the credibility
determination was in error because the IJ failed to take cultural
considerations into account, she provided a reasonable explanation
for the discrepancy on the rape claim, and the evidence in fact
supports her rape claim.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in light of the IJ’s
findings and conclude that Mohamed’s assertions are without merit.
As the negative credibility determination is supported by the
record and is entitled to deference, Mohamed does not qualify for
the relief sought. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000); see Rusu v. INS,
296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002); Matter of S-A-, Int. Dec. 3433
(BIA 2000); Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106 (BIA 1998).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3