Yan Shi v. Merrick Garland, No. 23-1390 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1390 YAN YUN SHI, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: November 9, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Alexa Torres, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yan Yun Shi, 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 decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We also conclude that the Board did not err in not considering whether Shi’s asylum application was timely filed and in finding that the immigration judge’s citation to an incorrect standard was harmless error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny as moot the joint motion to submit the petition on the briefs without oral argument. We conclude that 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.