Sandeep Singh v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-940-835. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999797752]. Mailed to: Petitioner. [15-2337]

Appeal: 15-2337

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2337

SANDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

April 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandeep Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant
Director, Jessica Dawgert, Ilissa Michelle Gould, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2337

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests

for

thoroughly

asylum

reviewed

and
the

withholding
record,

of

removal. *

including

the

We

have

transcript

Singh’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.

of

We conclude

that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any
of

the

administrative

factual

findings,

see

8

U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s decision.

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.

See In re: Singh (B.I.A. Oct. 1, 2015).

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

*

Singh does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue is
waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir.
2004).
2