Wei Ding v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-379-104 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990682].. [16-1281]
Appeal: 16-1281
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1281
WEI DING,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
November 30, 2016
Decided:
December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review dismissed in part and denied in part by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
David K. S. Kim, LAW OFFICE OF David K. S. Kim, P.C., Flushing,
New York, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Matthew B. George, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1281
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Wei
Ding,
a
native
and
citizen
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 cancellation of
removal. *
Ding first challenges the agency’s determination that his
asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied
to
excuse
the
untimeliness.
See
8
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016).
review
this
determination
pursuant
to
U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B)
We lack jurisdiction to
8
U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3)
(2012), and find that Ding has not raised any claims that would
fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012).
2009).
See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with
respect to the asylum claim.
Regarding
Ding’s
request
for
withholding
of
removal,
we
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record
evidence
does
not
compel
a
ruling
contrary
to
any
of
the
agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012),
and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS
*
On appeal, Ding does not challenge the denial of relief
under the Convention Against Torture or the denial of his
application for adjustment of status.
2
Appeal: 16-1281
Doc: 30
Filed: 12/20/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by
the Board.
See In re Ding (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2016).
Ding next
disputes the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal due to Ding’s failure to establish exceptional and
extremely
review,
unusual
we
claims.
find
hardship
that
we
to
a
lack
qualifying
relative.
jurisdiction
to
Upon
review
Ding’s
See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir.
2011) (finding no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal absent constitutional claim or question
of law).
Finally, our review discloses no abuse of discretion
in the agency’s denial of Ding’s motion to change venue, and no
prejudice
flowing
demonstrated
proceedings.
by
from
the
Anim
that
decision
Immigration
v.
Mukasey,
or
Judge
535
F.3d
any
in
alleged
the
243,
course
256
(4th
bias
of
Cir.
2008).
Accordingly,
we
petition for review.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
dismiss
in
part
and
deny
in
part
the
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
3
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?