Sandeep Singh v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2337 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2337 SANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?