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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?