Court Opinion

ID: 9387184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-15 21:00:23.164122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.004275
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2200      Doc: 33         Filed: 04/14/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2200

        SUKHJINDER SINGH,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: March 30, 2023                                         Decided: April 14, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Inna Lipkin, LAW OFFICE OF INNA LIPKIN, Redwood City, California,
        for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan
        A. Robbins, Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2200      Doc: 33         Filed: 04/14/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sukhjinder 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

        protection under the Convention Against Torture. After thoroughly reviewing the record,

        we are satisfied that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

        administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence

        supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

        Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re

        Singh (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2021). 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

                                                     2