Tony Tang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 14-1190 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1190 TONY BERT TANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 19, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tony Bert Tang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s decision denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. * We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to country conditions in Indonesia and the transcript of Tang s merits hearing. conclude that the record evidence does not compel a We ruling contrary to any of the administrative findings of fact, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), supports the Board s decision. U.S. 478, 481 (1992). and that substantial See INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2014). evidence See In re: Tang We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED * Tang does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, review of that issue is waived. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.