Case Name: DING JIN JING, a/k/a Dian Jin Jiang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-11
Citations: 547 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 13-1488
Parties: DING JIN JING, a/k/a Dian Jin Jiang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
DING JIN JING, a/k/a Dian Jin Jiang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1488.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 3, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 11, 2013.
Nataliya I. Gavlin, Gavlin & Associates, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Melissa K. Lott, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ding Jin Jing, 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 withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Jing's merits hearing, the record of Jing's sworn statement taken after his arrival in the United States, the credible fear interview and Jing's supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the Board's dismissal and that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012); 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. 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.