Alibek Turkayev v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1469 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1469 ALIBEK V. TURKAYEV; VERA BELAN, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 2, 2012 Before KING and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 29, 2012 HAMILTON, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Raymond Fasano, YOUMAN, MADEO & FASANO, LLP, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kathryn L. DeAngelis, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Alibek V. Turkayev and Vera Belan (collectively, Petitioners ) petition the Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board s ) order dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge s ( IJ s ) order denying the application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ) filed by Turkayev, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan. We have thoroughly examined the record and the contentions of the parties, and we deny the petition for review. When assessing an alien s petition for review, we must uphold the Board s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal unless the Board s determination is manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. 2010) Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while administrative reasonable findings adjudicator contrary. 8 Valladares v. Holder, Consequently, the of fact would U.S.C. 632 Board s § be are conclusive compelled 1252(b)(4)(B) F.3d 117, determination 124 to unless decide (2006); (4th regarding Cir. to any the Crespin2011). eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal will be affirmed if it is 2 supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The Petitioners claim before this court is very narrow: they simply contend that the Board improperly engaged in factfinding when it determined that they were not prejudiced by the conduct of the attorney who represented them before the IJ, such that counsel. and we they did not receive ineffective assistance of We have reviewed the record and the Board s opinion, conclude that the Petitioners arguments are without merit. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
