Xian F. Zhang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 14-1497 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1497 XIAN FENG ZHANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 14, 2014 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chunyu Jean Wang, WANG LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Erik R. Quick, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Xian Feng 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”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s withholding Against of removal, Torture. including the denial We of and requests withholding have transcript her thoroughly of Zhang’s under for the reviewed merits asylum, Convention the record, hearing, supporting statement, and her additional evidence. her 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) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006). We further conclude that a review of Zhang’s independent corroborating evidence does not compel a different result. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 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 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.
