Case Name: Jaswinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-01
Citations: 599 F. App'x 490
Docket Number: No. 14-1705
Parties: Jaswinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
Jaswinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1705.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 20, 2015.
Decided: April 1, 2015.
Alan M. Kaufman, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jaswinder 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, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and Singh's contentions on appeal, and conclude 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). Additionally, we have reviewed Singh's claim that he was denied due process at his hearing and find such claim to be without merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. June 25, 2014). 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.