Ming Huang v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-348-160 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999751660].. [15-1692]

Appeal: 15-1692

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1692

MING JIAN HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 27, 2016

Decided:

February 9, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexa Torres, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1692

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ming

Jian

Huang,

a

native

and

citizen

of

the

People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to remand and
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision
denying

his

application

for

cancellation

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2012).

of

removal

filed

We deny the petition

for review.
The

Attorney

General

may

cancel

the

removal

of

a

nonpermanent resident alien if the alien (1) has been physically
present in the United States continuously for at least 10 years;
(2) was of good moral character during that time period; (3) has
not

been

convicted

of

certain

enumerated

offenses;

and

(4) establishes that removal would result in an “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative.
§

1229b(b)(1).

eligibility

for

Huang

bears

relief

from

the

burden

removal.

of
8

8 U.S.C.

establishing

C.F.R.

his

§ 1240.8(d)

(2015); Quitanilla v. Holder, 758 F.3d 570, 579 (4th Cir. 2014).
Factual findings, including an adverse credibility finding,
are reviewed for substantial evidence, “reversing only if the
evidence compels a contrary finding,” and questions of law are
reviewed de novo.

Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d 902, 905 (4th

Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012)); see also
Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015).
2

An adverse

Appeal: 15-1692

Doc: 33

credibility

Filed: 02/09/2016

finding

should

Pg: 3 of 3

be

based

on

factors

such

as

the

plausibility of the applicant’s account, the consistency between
the

applicant’s

consistency

of

written
each

and

such

oral

statement,

statements,
the

the

internal

consistency

of

such

statements with other evidence of record, or any other relevant
factor.

8

U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)

(2012);

Hui

Pan v.

Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 928 (4th Cir. 2013).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence

supports

the

finding

that

because

Huang

was

not

credible, he failed to establish the required 10-year period of
continuous

presence.

Accordingly,

he

is

ineligible

for

cancellation of removal.
The Board’s denial of a motion to remand is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.
(4th Cir. 2007).

Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155

We conclude that substantial evidence supports

the finding that the new evidence was cumulative of evidence in
the record and Huang did not show why his new evidence was
previously unavailable.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

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

3