Khaled Assaad v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying petition for review [999857723-2] Originating case number: A205-932-210 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000046844].. [16-1688]

Appeal: 16-1688

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1688

KHALED ASSAAD,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 13, 2017

Decided:

March 22, 2017

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy L. McKinney, MCKINNEY IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Assistant Director,
Kate D. Balaban, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1688

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Khaled Assaad, a native of Lebanon and a citizen of Belize,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(Board)

judge’s

dismissing

decision

withholding
Against

of

denying

removal,

Torture.

including

the

his

We

supporting evidence.

his

and
have

transcript

appeal

of

from

the

applications

for

protection

under

thoroughly

reviewed

Assaad’s

merits

immigration

the

asylum,

Convention

the

hearing

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

reasons stated by the Board.

the

2016).
legal
before

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re Assaad (B.I.A. May 19,

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