Case Name: YAN QIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-20
Citations: 539 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 13-1472
Parties: YAN QIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 258–259

Head Matter:
YAN QIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1472.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 3, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 20, 2013.
David A. Bredin, Law Office of David A. Bredin, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yan Qin 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 her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in China, the transcript of Chen's merits hearing, and Chen's supporting affidavit and 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) (2006), 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. Mar. 15, 2013). 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.