Fang Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1520 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1520 FANG SHU LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 23, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Campise, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Fang Shu 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 ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s withholding of denial of deportation, Lin s applications protection under Against Torture, and adjustment of status. challenge the denial of his for the asylum, Convention Because Lin does not applications for asylum, withholding, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, our review statutorily Ngarurih v. is limited to ineligible Ashcroft, 371 the for agency s finding adjustment F.3d 182, of 189 n.7 that Lin status. (4th Cir. is See 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same). We have thoroughly reviewed the record as it pertains to Lin s application for adjustment of status and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Lin failed to credibly establish that he was inspected and admitted into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. dispense See In re: Fang Shu Lin (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2013). with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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.