Wei Chen v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-916-163. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999934026]. [16-1182]

Appeal: 16-1182

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1182

WEI QIN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 15, 2016

Decided:

September 22, 2016

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Karikari, KARIKARI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Rebecca
Hughes, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1182

Doc: 33

Filed: 09/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Wei Qin Chen, 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

his

appeal

from

the

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript
of Chen’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence.

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.

In re Chen (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2016).

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