MBOLE-LONGONJE v. LYNCH, 15-1231. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20151005073
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM : Lucas Mbole-Longonje, a native and citizen of Cameroon, and his wife and daughter, derivative beneficiaries Mabel Mejane Enang-Ekane and Belsy Limunga Mbole, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of Mbole-Longonje's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Tor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM : Lucas Mbole-Longonje, a native and citizen of Cameroon, and his wife and daughter, derivative beneficiaries Mabel Mejane Enang-Ekane and Belsy Limunga Mbole, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of Mbole-Longonje's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Tort..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lucas Mbole-Longonje, a native and citizen of Cameroon, and his wife and daughter, derivative beneficiaries Mabel Mejane Enang-Ekane and Belsy Limunga Mbole, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of Mbole-Longonje's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Mbole-Longonje's merits hearing, his asylum application, and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. 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. See In re: Mbole-Longonje (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 2015). 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.
Source: Leagle
