Court Opinion

ID: 9896407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-10 21:00:36.533315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.942916
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1390      Doc: 23         Filed: 11/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1390

        YAN YUN SHI,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 9, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Alexa Torres, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
        Jersey, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1390      Doc: 23         Filed: 11/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Yan Yun Shi, 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 applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal. 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). We also conclude that the Board did

        not err in not considering whether Shi’s asylum application was timely filed and in finding

        that the immigration judge’s citation to an incorrect standard was harmless error.

        Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny as moot the joint motion to submit

        the petition on the briefs without oral argument. We conclude that 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