Shu Jin Li v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-108-942. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999228518].. [13-1446]

Appeal: 13-1446

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1446

SHU JIN LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

October 18, 2013

Decided:

October 29, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BROWN, New York, New York,
for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tim
Ramnitz,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1446

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shu
Republic

of

Jin

Li,

China,

a

native

petitions

and
for

citizen
review

of
of

the
the

People’s
Board

of

Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from
the

immigration

asylum,

judge’s

withholding

of

order

removal,

Convention Against Torture.
record,

including

Li’s

denying
and

his

applications

protection

under

for
the

We have thoroughly reviewed the

supporting

statements,

the

various

supporting affidavits and documents presented to the immigration
court, and the transcript of Li’s merits hearing.

We conclude

that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to
any of the immigration judge’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s decision to uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Li’s applications for relief.

See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board.
14, 2013).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

See In re: Shu Jin Li (B.I.A. Mar.

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED

2