Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02337/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Sandeep Singh
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2337

SANDEEP SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: April 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandeep Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant 

Director, Jessica Dawgert, Ilissa Michelle Gould, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2337 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandeep 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. Oct. 1, 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

 * 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).

Appeal: 15-2337 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 2