Wei Ding v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-379-104 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1281]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States,
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
November 30, 2016
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unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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
Ding first challenges the agency’s determination that his
asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016).
We lack jurisdiction to
(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)
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.
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record
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.
Pg: 3 of 3
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by
See In re Ding (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2016).
disputes the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal due to Ding’s failure to establish exceptional and
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
Finally, our review discloses no abuse of discretion
in the agency’s denial of Ding’s motion to change venue, and no
petition for review.
We dispense with oral argument because the
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
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?