Case Name: WEI WEI WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General for the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-18
Citations: 581 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 13-2273
Parties: WEI WEI WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General for the United States, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 280–280

Head Matter:
WEI WEI WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General for the United States, Respondent.
No. 13-2273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 18, 2014.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Brendan P. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wei Wei Wang, 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 (IJ) decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Wong's merits hearing and her supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision to uphold the IJ's denial of Wong's applications for relief. 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: Wei Wei Weng (B.I.A. Nov. 14, 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.