Xue Qiang Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1232 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1232 XUE QIANG LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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: Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. April 4, 2013 Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions for review, Xue Qiang Lin, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for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, (Appeal and No. protection 12-1232), under and the (2) Convention denying his removal proceedings (Appeal No. 12-2080). reviewed the record, including Lin s Against motion to Torture reopen We have thoroughly 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. U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Appeal No. See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in 12-1232 for the reasons stated Board. by the 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. 3 See 8 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. dispense See In re: Xue Qiang Lin (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2012). with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 4
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.
