Case Name: Ajay Kumar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; Calvin McCormick, Director, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-30
Citations: 667 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 15-2464
Parties: Ajay Kumar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; Calvin McCormick, Director, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Respondents.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 81–81

Head Matter:
Ajay Kumar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, U.S. Attorney; Calvin McCormick, Director, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Respondents.
No. 15-2464
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 20, 2016
Decided: June 30, 2016
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Christina P. Greer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ajay Kumar Singh, a native and citizen of India, 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 removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and 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: Singh (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 2015). 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