Gurpreet Singh v. Jefferson Sessions III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-586-765. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [17-1399]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 25, 2017
Decided: August 9, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gurpreet Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Evan Paul Schultz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 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 and withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Singh’s merits hearing and all supporting
evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any
of the administrative 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 Singh (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017). 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.
Singh does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189
n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
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?