Yuhua Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1417
    YUHUA LIU,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   December 3, 2013               Decided:   January 6, 2014
    Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas V. Massucci, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS V. MASSUCCI, New York,
    New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
    General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Sunah Lee, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Yuhua      Liu,        a    native         and    citizen         of    the        People’s
    Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
    immigration      judge’s           denial         of        her    requests          for        asylum,
    withholding      of    removal         and     withholding              under      the    Convention
    Against    Torture.           We       have    thoroughly              reviewed       the       record,
    including the transcript of Liu’s merits hearing, the summary of
    the interview prepared after she was apprehended in the United
    States,    and   her    supporting            evidence.                We    conclude       that   the
    record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the Board’s
    dismissal   and       that    substantial              evidence         supports         the    adverse
    credibility      finding.              See    8    U.S.C.          § 1252(b)(4)(B)              (2012);
    INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992).
    Accordingly,           we    deny         the    petition         for     review.        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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1417

Judges: Keenan, Diaz, Floyd

Filed Date: 1/6/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024