Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0198-01.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

ZHI QIANG LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-1019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 11, 2014.
    Decided: Sept. 16, 2014.
    Michael Brown, Law Offices of Michael Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, John D. Williams, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zhi Qiang Liu, 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 denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Liu’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, 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: Zhi Qiang Liu (BIA Dec. 16, 2013). 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. 
      
      To the extent that Liu seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture, we lack jurisdiction on the ground that Liu failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir.2008).