Case Name: WEN SHENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-30
Citations: 521 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 12-2365
Parties: WEN SHENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
WEN SHENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-2365.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 17, 2013.
Decided: May 30, 2013.
Thomas V. Massucci, Law Office of Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Wen Sheng 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") 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 various documentary exhibits relevant to family planning policies in China, the transcript of Huang's merits hearing, and Huang's supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board's factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), 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: Wen Sheng Huang (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012). 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.