Singh v. Lynch

Full title: SANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 19, 2016

645 F. App'x 265 (4th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-2337

04-19-2016

SANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

Sandeep Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Jessica Dawgert, Ilissa Michelle Gould, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandeep Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Jessica Dawgert, Ilissa Michelle Gould, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Sandeep 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).

* 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). --------

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. Oct. 1, 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