Court Opinion

ID: 9945456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:00:40.210664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.956588
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1435      Doc: 29         Filed: 02/26/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1435

        TARANVIR SINGH,

                             Petitioner,

                      v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                             Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 20, 2024                                 Decided: February 26, 2024

        Before GREGORY, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Jeffery R.
        Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Abigail E. Leach, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1435         Doc: 29      Filed: 02/26/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Taranvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the

        Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial

        of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed

        the record and Singh’s claims 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. In re Singh (B.I.A. Apr. 6,

        2023). 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