Wei Ding v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-1281 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1281 WEI DING, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition for review dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. David K. S. Kim, LAW OFFICE OF David K. S. Kim, P.C., Flushing, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew B. George, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Wei Ding, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and cancellation of removal. * Ding first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2016). review this determination pursuant to U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) We lack jurisdiction to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Ding has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). 2009). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the asylum claim. Regarding Ding’s request for withholding of removal, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS * On appeal, Ding does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture or the denial of his application for adjustment of status. 2 v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Ding (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2016). Ding next disputes the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal due to Ding’s failure to establish exceptional and extremely review, unusual we claims. find hardship that we to a lack qualifying relative. jurisdiction to Upon review Ding’s See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal absent constitutional claim or question of law). Finally, our review discloses no abuse of discretion in the agency’s denial of Ding’s motion to change venue, and no prejudice flowing demonstrated proceedings. by from the Anim that decision Immigration v. Mukasey, or Judge 535 F.3d any in alleged the 243, course 256 (4th bias of Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we petition for review. facts and materials legal before dismiss in part and deny in part the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART 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.
