Riying Wang v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A089-783-141. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000000831]. Mailed to: Riying Wang. [16-1666]

Appeal: 16-1666

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1666

RIYING WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 16, 2016

Decided:

January 10, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Riying Wang, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Briena L. Stippoli, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Karen L. Melnik, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1666

Doc: 20

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Riying Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration

Appeals

Immigration

Judge’s

withholding
Against

(Board)

of

including

the

denial

removal,

Torture.

We

and
have

transcript

supporting evidence.

dismissing

of

of

his

his

appeal

requests

for

protection

under

thoroughly

reviewed

Wang’s

merits

from

the

the

asylum,

Convention

the

hearings

record,
and

all

We conclude that the record evidence does

not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual
findings,

see

substantial

8

U.S.C.

evidence

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

supports

the

(2012),

Board’s

and

decision,

INS

that
v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly,

we

deny

the

reasons stated by the Board.
2016).
legal
before

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re Wang (B.I.A. May 16,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED

2