Cheng Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-2276 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2276 CHENG BO LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 18, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, D.C., for Respondent. Petitioner. Song Park, Immigration Washington, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cheng Bo Lin, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge s withholding of order removal denying and his protection applications under the for Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lin first disputes the conclusion that he failed to qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 359 (4th Cir. 2009) § 1231(b)(3) (2006). and conclude that Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, (citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C. We have reviewed the administrative record substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination as well as its finding that Lin failed persecution. to demonstrate Because the a clear evidence probability does not of compel future us conclude to the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. to See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Lin failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than 2 not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2013). We dispense accordingly with contentions are oral deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for review. facts We and legal materials before this 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.
