Case Name: Khaled ASSAAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-22
Citations: 682 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 16-1688
Parties: Khaled ASSAAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Khaled ASSAAD, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-1688
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 13, 2017
Decided: March 22, 2017
Jeremy L. McKinney, MeKINNEY IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Papú Sandhu, Assistant Director, Kate D. Balaban, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Khaled Assaad, a native of Lebanon and a citizen of Belize, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the tran script of Assaad's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency's factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, I.N.S. 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 Assaad (B.I.A. May 19, 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