Xing Weng v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2535
XING WENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 4, 2013 Decided: June 20, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Nader Moslemi, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart
F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C.
Peachey, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Xing Weng, 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 his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record,
including the State Department’s 2007 report on China: Profile
of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, the transcript of
Weng’s merits hearing, and Weng’s supporting affidavit and
evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel
a ruling contrary to any of the Board’s factual findings, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review* for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Xing Weng (B.I.A. Nov.
20, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
* To the extent that Weng seeks review of the agency’s
denial of his request for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, we dismiss this claim for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006);
Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). As
noted by the Board, Weng failed to raise any meaningful
arguments before the Board in support of his eligibility for
this form of relief.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --