Eman Magid v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-596-099,A206-596-100 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-2329]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EMAN ABDEL MAGID; MOHAMED SHAMA,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 28, 2017
Decided: July 21, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saher J. Macarius, Audrey Botros, LAW OFFICES OF SAHER J. MACARIUS, LLC,
Framingham, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Barbara J. Leen, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Eman Abdel Magid and derivative petitioner Mohamed Shama, both natives and
citizens of Egypt, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of Magid’s requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Magid’s
merits hearing and all 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,
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 Magid (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 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.
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?