Court Opinion

ID: 9401142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:38.114187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.930852
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1875      Doc: 24         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1875

        KANGHUA CAI,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: September 21, 2022                                        Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Thomas V. Massucci, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS V. MASSUCCI, New
        York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
        M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1875      Doc: 24         Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kanghua Cai, 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 his appeal

        from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal and finding that he filed a frivolous asylum application. We have

        thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude 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 Cai (B.I.A. July 28, 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