Xia Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1266 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1266 XIA LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: June 18, 2014 Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition granted in part and remanded; and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nataliya I. Gavlin, GAVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yedidy A. Cohen, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Xia 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) Immigration Judge s denial withholding of dismissing of removal. 1 her Lin her requests asserts on appeal the asylum for from and that she appeal established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal by demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her violation of China s family planning policy due to the births of her two United States citizen children, and on account of her Christian faith. We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and agency decisions and conclude that the record contains powerful contradictory evidence to that relied on by the Board in asylum and withholding of removal based on her family planning claim. See Ai determining Hua Chen v. that Lin Holder, failed 742 F.3d to qualify 171 (4th for Cir. 2014). We accordingly grant the petition for review in part and remand 1 In her opening brief, Lin fails to raise any meaningful challenge to the denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, we conclude that Lin has abandoned her CAT claim on appeal. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 2 Lin s family planning claim to the Board for further proceedings in light of our decision in Ai Hua Chen. 2 Next, we have reviewed the record and claims relevant to Lin s claim based on her Christian faith, and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to that of the Board, and that substantial evidence supports the finding that Lin did withholding of § 1252(b)(4)(B); (1992). not establish eligibility removal on INS Elias-Zacarias, v. this for ground. asylum See U.S. 502 8 and U.S.C. 478, 481 We therefore deny the petition for review in part with respect to this claim. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in part and remand, dispense and with contentions are deny oral the petition argument adequately for because presented in review the the in facts part. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED; AND DENIED IN PART 2 The Board s further proceedings may include a review of the Immigration Judge s determination that Lin s asylum application is time-barred and that she failed to show that she qualified under any exception to the one-year filing requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a). 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.
