SINGH v. SESSIONS, 17-1399. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20170809099
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM : Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Singh's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM : Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Singh's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Singh's merits hearing and all supporting evidence. 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) (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 Singh (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017). 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.
FootNotes
* Singh does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
Source: Leagle
