UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1025
MING FANG CHEN; ZHAO WU ZENG, a/k/a Zhou Wu Zheng,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 14, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen
Giuffreda Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
The Petitioners, Ming Fang Chen and her husband, Zhao
Wu Zeng, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of their requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The Board’s order also denied the Petitioners’ motion for
remand.
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 the
Petitioners’ merits hearing, and the Petitioners’ asylum
applications and supporting evidence. We conclude that the
record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the
administrative 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).
We have also reviewed the denial of the Petitioners’ motion to
remand and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146
F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of
review).
2
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review * for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ming Fang Chen (B.I.A.
Dec. 14, 2012). 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
*
The Petitioners have failed to raise any challenges to the
denial of their request for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. They have therefore waived appellate review of
this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004).
3