Ying Yang-Mei v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A077-222-958 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999209567].. [13-1184]

Appeal: 13-1184

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/07/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1184

YING YANG-MEI, a/k/a Hui Jiang Liu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

July 31, 2013

Decided:

October 7, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Campise, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for
Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General,
Leslie
McKay,
Assistant
Director,
Kristofer
R.
McDonald, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1184

Doc: 25

Filed: 10/07/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ying Yang-Mei, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration

judge’s

denial

withholding of removal.

of

her

requests

for

asylum

and

We have thoroughly reviewed the record,

including the U.S. Department of State’s International Religious
Freedom

Report

2010

for

China,

the

transcript

of

Yang-Mei’s

merits hearing, and Yang-Mei’s asylum application and supporting
evidence.

We conclude that the record evidence does not compel

a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings,
see

8

evidence

U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

supports

the

(2006),

Board’s

decision.

and

that

See

INS

substantial
v.

Elias–

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board.
11, 2013). *

See In re: Yang-Mei (B.I.A. Jan.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

*

To the extent that the Board misstated the standard of
review by referring to the “likelihood” of future harm, we note
that the Board properly cited 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2) (2013)
(setting forth “reasonable possibility” standard) and several
cases discussing the standards for establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution.
We therefore conclude that any resulting
error was harmless.
See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 279
(4th Cir. 2011) (“We need not reverse the agency's decision if
we determine that an error clearly had no bearing on the
procedure used or the substance of the decision reached.”),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012).

2

Appeal: 13-1184

legal
before

Doc: 25

contentions
this

court

Filed: 10/07/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

3