Wen Huang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-2365 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2365 WEN SHENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 17, 2013 Decided: May 30, 2013 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS V. MASSUCCI, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Wen Sheng Huang, 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 denial withholding of deportation. of his requests for asylum and We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to family planning policies in China, the transcript of Huang s merits hearing, and Huang s supporting affidavit and evidence. 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. See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Oct. 11, 2012). facts and materials legal before See In re: Wen Sheng Huang (B.I.A. We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.