Weihe Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1706 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1706 WEIHE ZHANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 8, 2013 Decided: November 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Weihe Zhang, Petitioner Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Weihe Zhang, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to remand. * We have reviewed the record and the Board s order and find no abuse of discretion. Cir. 1998) remand). (setting See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th forth standard legal before review for motions to We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 2013). of See In re: Zhang (B.I.A. May 2, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED * The Board s order also dismissed Zhang s appeal from the immigration judge s denial of Zhang s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because Zhang has failed to raise any challenges in his informal brief to the agency s denial of these applications, including any challenges to the agency s initial adverse credibility determination, we find that these issues are now waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court s review on appeal is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief); cf. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)). 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.
