Case Name: Eman Abdel MAGID; Mohamed Shama, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-21
Citations: 693 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 16-2329
Parties: Eman Abdel MAGID; Mohamed Shama, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
Eman Abdel MAGID; Mohamed Shama, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2329
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2017
Decided: July 21, 2017
Saher J. Macarius, Audrey Botros, LAW OFFICES OF SAHER J. MACARIUS, LLC, Framingham, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Barbara J. Leen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eman Abdel Magid and derivative petitioner Mohamed Shama, both natives and citizens of Egypt, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of Magid's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Magid'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, 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 Magid (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 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