Valentin Khoroshkov v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-314-994. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999092315]. [12-2379]

Appeal: 12-2379

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2379

VALENTIN ALEXANDROVICH KHOROSHKOV,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 12, 2013

Decided:

April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Elizabeth
R. Chapman, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2379

Doc: 19

Filed: 04/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Valentin

Alexandrovich

Khoroshkov,

a

native

and

citizen of Kazakhstan, 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 and withholding of removal.

We have thoroughly reviewed

the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant
to

country

conditions

Khoroshkov’s

merits

in

Kazakhstan,

hearing,

affidavit and evidence.

and

the

transcript

Khoroshkov’s

of

supporting

We conclude that the record evidence

does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board’s factual
findings,

see

8

U.S.C.

§

1252(b)(4)(B)

(2006),

substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.
Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

and

that

See INS v.

Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Khoroshkov (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2