KHOROSHKOV v. HOLDER, 12-2379. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20130423102
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2013
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Valentin Alexandrovich Khoroshkov, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Kazakhstan, the tran
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Valentin Alexandrovich Khoroshkov, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Kazakhstan, the trans..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Valentin Alexandrovich Khoroshkov, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Kazakhstan, the transcript of Khoroshkov's merits hearing, and Khoroshkov's supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board's factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), 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: Khoroshkov (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
Source: Leagle
