Eman Magid v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 16-2329 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2329 EMAN ABDEL MAGID; MOHAMED SHAMA, Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 28, 2017 Decided: July 21, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Saher J. Macarius, Audrey Botros, LAW OFFICES OF SAHER J. MACARIUS, LLC, Framingham, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel, Barbara J. Leen, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eman Abdel Magid and derivative petitioner Mohamed Shama, both natives and citizens of Egypt, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of Magid’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Magid’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We 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 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 Magid (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2016). 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.