Ming Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1025 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1025 MING FANG CHEN; ZHAO WU ZENG, a/k/a Zhou Wu Zheng, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 14, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: The Petitioners, Ming Fang Chen and her husband, Zhao Wu Zeng, natives and citizens of the People s Republic of China, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board s order also denied the Petitioners motion for remand. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the State Department s Claims and Country Petitioners applications 2007 merits and report on Conditions, hearing, supporting China: the and of transcript the evidence. Profile of Petitioners We conclude Asylum the asylum that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative (2006), and decision. factual that findings, substantial see 8 evidence U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) supports the Board s See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We have also reviewed the denial of the Petitioners motion to remand and find no abuse of discretion. F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) review). 2 See Onyeme v. INS, 146 (setting forth standard of Accordingly, we deny the petition for review * for the reasons stated by the Board. Dec. 14, 2012). facts and materials legal before See In re: Ming Fang Chen (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 * The Petitioners have failed to raise any challenges to the denial of their request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. They have therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.