Case Name: WEN BI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-16
Citations: 521 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 12-2426
Parties: WEN BI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
WEN BI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-2426.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 6, 2013.
Decided: May 16, 2013.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Kathryn M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wen Bi 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 her appeal from the immigration judge's denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal and denying her motion to remand. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the U.S. Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report 2010 for China, the transcript of Chen's merits hearing, and Chen's asylum application and supporting 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). We have also reviewed the denial of Chen's motion to remand and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir.1998) (setting forth standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Chen (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 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.