Xue Fang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1414 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1414 XUE HUA FANG; WU QIANG HUANG, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 3, 2013 Decided: September 10, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stuart S. Nickum, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Xue Hua Fang and Wu Qiang Huang, 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 request for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to family planning policies in China, the letters and affidavits and the transcript of Fang s testimony, and we conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and decision. that substantial evidence supports the Board s 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. Mar. 11, 2013). facts and materials legal before See In re: Xue Hua Fang (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.