Shu Jin Li v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1446 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1446 SHU JIN LI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 18, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Brown, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL BROWN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tim Ramnitz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shu Jin of China, Republic Li, a native petitions and for citizen review of of the the People s Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration asylum, judge s withholding of order removal, Convention Against Torture. record, including Li s denying and his applications protection under for the We have thoroughly reviewed the supporting statements, the various supporting affidavits and documents presented to the immigration court, and the transcript of Li s merits hearing. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the immigration judge s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board s decision to uphold the immigration judge s denial of Li s applications for relief. 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. 14, 2013). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this See In re: Shu Jin Li (B.I.A. Mar. court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.