Opinion
No. 13-1446
10-29-2013
SHU JIN LI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Michael Brown, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BROWN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tim Ramnitz, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Brown, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BROWN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tim Ramnitz, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Shu Jin Li, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including Li's supporting statements, the various supporting affidavits and documents presented to the immigration court, and the transcript of Li's merits hearing. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the immigration judge's factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision to uphold the immigration judge's denial of Li's applications for relief. 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: Shu Jin Li (B.I.A. Mar. 14, 2013). 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