Wei Ding v. Loretta Lynch ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1281
WEI DING,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review dismissed in part and denied in part by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
David K. S. Kim, LAW OFFICE OF David K. S. Kim, P.C., Flushing,
New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Matthew B. George, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wei Ding, a native and citizen of China, 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, withholding of removal and cancellation of
removal. *
Ding first challenges the agency’s determination that his
asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied
to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). We lack jurisdiction to
review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2012), and find that Ding has not raised any claims that would
fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with
respect to the asylum claim.
Regarding Ding’s request for withholding of removal, we
have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record
evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012),
and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS
* On appeal, Ding does not challenge the denial of relief
under the Convention Against Torture or the denial of his
application for adjustment of status.
2
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re Ding (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2016). Ding next
disputes the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal due to Ding’s failure to establish exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. Upon
review, we find that we lack jurisdiction to review Ding’s
claims. See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir.
2011) (finding no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal absent constitutional claim or question
of law). Finally, our review discloses no abuse of discretion
in the agency’s denial of Ding’s motion to change venue, and no
prejudice flowing from that decision or any alleged bias
demonstrated by the Immigration Judge in the course of
proceedings. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.
2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
3