Court Opinion

ID: 9905134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:00:37.264485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.772301
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1343      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1343

        YING LUI,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Adedayo O. Idowu, LAW OFFICES OF ADEDAYO O. IDOWU, New
        York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
        General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Civil
        Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1343      Doc: 22         Filed: 11/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ying Lui, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review

        of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Lui’s appeal from the

        immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

        and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 1 We deny the petition for

        review.

               We have reviewed the arguments Lui presses on appeal in light of the administrative

        record, including the transcript of Lui’s merits hearing and the supporting evidence, and

        the relevant legal authorities. 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)—including the adverse credibility finding or the finding that the proffered

        corroborating evidence was only entitled to limited weight 2—and that substantial evidence

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

        Ilunga, 777 F.3d at 207 (explaining that “omissions, inconsistent statements, contradictory

               1
                  Upon review, we agree with the Attorney General that Lui’s challenge to the denial
        of her request for CAT protection was not administratively exhausted because Lui did not
        raise it on appeal to the Board, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and therefore it is not properly
        before us for review, see Tepas v. Garland, 73 F.4th 208, 213 (4th Cir. 2023) (observing
        that, although § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional, it “remains a mandatory claim-processing
        rule”).
               2
                 We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence, affording broad—
        though not unlimited—deference to the agency’s credibility findings. Ilunga v. Holder,
        777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
        We likewise conduct substantial evidence review of the agency’s ruling as to the weight
        afforded a noncitizen’s corroborating evidence. Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930-31
        (4th Cir. 2013).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1343         Doc: 22      Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        evidence, and inherently improbable testimony are appropriate bases for making an adverse

        credibility determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Ying Lui (B.I.A. Mar. 16,

        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

                                                     3