Case Name: Xiang YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-30
Citations: 616 F. App'x 119
Docket Number: No. 15-1280
Parties: Xiang YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
Xiang YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2015.
Farah Loftus, Law Office of Farah Lof-tus, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Neelam Ihsanullah, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xiang Yang, 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 of the Immigration Judge's denial of Yang's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Yang's merits hearing, her asylum application, and all 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. 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: Yang (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 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..