Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01692/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01692-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ming Jian Huang
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1692

MING JIAN HUANG,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 9, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexa Torres, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New 

Jersey, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1692 Doc: 33 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ming Jian Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to remand and 

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision 

denying his application for cancellation of removal filed 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2012). We deny the petition 

for review. 

The Attorney General may cancel the removal of a 

nonpermanent resident alien if the alien (1) has been physically 

present in the United States continuously for at least 10 years; 

(2) was of good moral character during that time period; (3) has 

not been convicted of certain enumerated offenses; and 

(4) establishes that removal would result in an “exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1). Huang bears the burden of establishing his 

eligibility for relief from removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) 

(2015); Quitanilla v. Holder, 758 F.3d 570, 579 (4th Cir. 2014).

Factual findings, including an adverse credibility finding,

are reviewed for substantial evidence, “reversing only if the 

evidence compels a contrary finding,” and questions of law are 

reviewed de novo. Pastora v. Holder, 737 F.3d 902, 905 (4th 

Cir. 2013) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012)); see also

Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015). An adverse 

Appeal: 15-1692 Doc: 33 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

credibility finding should be based on factors such as the 

plausibility of the applicant’s account, the consistency between 

the applicant’s written and oral statements, the internal 

consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such 

statements with other evidence of record, or any other relevant 

factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012); Hui Pan v. 

Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 928 (4th Cir. 2013).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the finding that because Huang was not 

credible, he failed to establish the required 10-year period of

continuous presence. Accordingly, he is ineligible for 

cancellation of removal. 

The Board’s denial of a motion to remand is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 

(4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the finding that the new evidence was cumulative of evidence in 

the record and Huang did not show why his new evidence was 

previously unavailable. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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

Appeal: 15-1692 Doc: 33 Filed: 02/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3