Abdalkarim S. M. Qandeel; Maisaa Mohd Ameen Kame Alhindi v. Loretta E. Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1613
ABDALKARIM S. M. QANDEEL; MAISAA MOHD AMEEN KAME ALHINDI,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.
No. 14-2411
ABDALKARIM S. M. QANDEEL; MAISAA MOHD AMEEN KAME ALHINDI,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: July 30, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ira J. Kurzban, KURZBAN KURZBAN WEINGER TETZELI & PRATT, P.A.,
Miami, Florida, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director,
Margaret A. O’Donnell, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Abdulkarim S.M. Qandeel, a stateless Palestinian, and his
wife, derivative beneficiary Maisaa Mohd Ameen Kame Alhindi, a
native of Saudi Arabia and a citizen of Jordan, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of
Qandeel’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioners
also seek review of the Board’s order denying their motion to
reopen. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the
transcript of Qandeel’s merits hearing, his asylum application,
and all supporting evidence. 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 Board’s
decision denying relief from removal. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We further find that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to
reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Qandeel (B.I.A. May 30
& Dec. 16, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --