Xue Qiang Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1232
XUE QIANG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-2080
XUE QIANG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 1, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adedayo O. Idowu, LAW OFFICES OF ADEDAYO O. IDOWU, PLLC, New
York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Xue Qiang
Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) orders (1) dismissing his appeal of the immigration
judge’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(Appeal No. 12-1232), and (2) denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings (Appeal No. 12-2080). We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including Lin’s affidavit, the various
supporting affidavits and documents presented to the immigration
court, and the transcript of Lin’s merits hearing. 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 to uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Lin’s application for relief. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review in Appeal No. 12-1232 for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Xue Qiang Lin (B.I.A. Jan. 27, 2012).
We turn then to the Board’s order denying Lin’s motion
to reopen his removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record
as relevant to that motion and conclude that the Board did not
abuse its discretion in denying reopening in this case. See 8
3
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2012). We therefore deny the petition
for review in Appeal No. 12-2080 for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Xue Qiang Lin (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2012). 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
4