Case Name: Jianguan CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-09
Citations: 667 F. App'x 830
Docket Number: No. 15-2501
Parties: Jianguan CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 830–830

Head Matter:
Jianguan CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-2501
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 13, 2016
Decided: August 9, 2016
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley Martin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jianguan 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 his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Chen's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), 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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Chen (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 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