Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lucas MBOLE-LONGONJE; Mabel Mejane Enang-Ekane; Belsy Limunga Mbole, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-1231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 16, 2015.
    Decided: Oct. 5, 2015.
    Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer A. Bowen, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for .Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lucas Mbole-Longonje, a native and citizen of Cameroon, and his wife and daughter, derivative beneficiaries Mabel Mejane Enang-Ekane and Belsy Limunga Mbole, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of Mbole-Longonje’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, ■and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Mbole-Longonje’s merits hearing, his' asylum application, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mbole-Longonje (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 2015). 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.