Wei Weng v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A089-475-174 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999417288].. [13-2273]

Appeal: 13-2273

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2273

WEI WEI WENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H.
States,

HOLDER,

JR.,

Attorney

General

for

the

United

Respondent.

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

Submitted:

July 22, 2014

Decided:

August 18, 2014

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier,
Assistant Director, Brendan P. Hogan, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2273

Doc: 26

Filed: 08/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wei Wei Wang, 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
asylum,

Judge’s

withholding

(IJ)
of

decision
removal

Convention Against Torture.

denying
and

her

requests

protection

under

for
the

We have thoroughly reviewed the

record, including the transcript of Weng’s merits hearing and
her supporting evidence.

We conclude that the record evidence

does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative
findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to uphold the
IJ’s

denial

of

Weng’s

applications

for

relief.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

See

INS

v.

Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Wei Wei Weng (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 2012).

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.

PETITION DENIED

2