Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01182/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wei Qin Chen
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1182

WEI QIN CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 15, 2016 Decided: September 22, 2016

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Karikari, KARIKARI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, 

for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, Rebecca 

Hughes, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration 

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

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1182 Doc: 33 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Wei Qin Chen, 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, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript 

of Chen’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. In re Chen (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 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.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 16-1182 Doc: 33 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2