Guo Yang v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-119-961. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000086188].. [16-2241]

Appeal: 16-2241

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/23/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2241

GUO YONG YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 23, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Wendy
Benner-León, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2241

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/23/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Guo Yong Yang, 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 decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits, the transcript of Yang’s
merits hearings, and his supporting evidence. We 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. 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.
See In re Yang (B.I.A. Oct. 6, 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