USCA4 Appeal: 23-2305 Doc: 54 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2305

ANTONIO JOSUE AVILES-RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security.

No. 24-2204

ANTONIO JOSUE AVILES-RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2305 Doc: 54 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Josue Aviles-Ramirez, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth Melia Dewar, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2305 Doc: 54 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated matters, Antonio Josue Aviles-Ramirez (Aviles), a native and

citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of (a) the reinstated order of removal issued by

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (No. 23-2305); and (b) an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals dismissing Aviles’ appeal of the immigration judge’s oral decision

denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT) (No. 24-2204). As described below, we deny the consolidated

petitions for review.

As related to No. 23-2305, we observe that Aviles’ informal brief does not challenge

or otherwise address the reinstatement order. Accordingly, Aviles has forfeited review of

that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland,

, 602 (4th Cir.

2023) (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised

in the party’s briefs).

As related to No. 24-2204, we have reviewed the arguments that Aviles does raise

on appeal in light of the administrative record, including the transcript of Aviles’ 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

(b)(4)(B)—including the adverse credibility finding *—and

that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, see Cortez-Mendez

* We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad— though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility findings. Ilunga v. Holder,

(4th Cir. 2015); Camara v. Ashcroft,

(4th Cir. 2004).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2305 Doc: 54 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

v. Whitaker,

(4th Cir. 2019) (conducting substantial-evidence review

of the agency’s denial of petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal). See also Ilunga,

(recognizing that “omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory

evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse

credibility determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We also agree that the

evidence independent of Aviles’ testimony was insufficient to meet Aviles’ burden of proof

for either withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. Finally, we do not consider

the evidence advanced by Aviles for the first time in conjunction with this proceeding

because it is not part of the certified administrative record. See

(b)(4)(A)

(“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on

which the order of removal is based.”).

Accordingly, we deny the consolidated petitions for review. See In re Aviles-

Ramirez (D.H.S. Dec. 5, 2023; B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2024). 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.

PETITIONS DENIED

4