UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1899
SHAHAZAD KHAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-418-724)
Submitted: March 14, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005
Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanton Braverman, BRAVERMAN & LIN, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shahazad Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
finding that Khan is removable for committing fraud or
misrepresenting a material fact when he applied for asylum.
The Government has the burden of establishing by clear
and convincing evidence that an alien who has been admitted to the
United States is removable. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(a) (2000). No
decision on removability is valid unless it is based upon
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. Id. Our review
of a final order of removal is limited, however. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b) (2000). The IJ’s underlying factual findings are
conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary,” while the Board’s decision that an alien
is not eligible for admission is conclusive unless manifestly
contrary to law. § 1252(b)(4)(B), (C).
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude it
does not compel a finding that the warrant Khan submitted in
support of his asylum application is authentic or that his
testimony before the IJ was credible. Khan has therefore failed to
establish that the Board’s decision was manifestly contrary to law.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -