UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1184
YING YANG-MEI, a/k/a Hui Jiang Liu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: October 7, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Campise, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Kristofer R.
McDonald, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ying Yang-Mei, 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 denial of her requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record,
including the U.S. Department of State’s International Religious
Freedom Report 2010 for China, the transcript of Yang-Mei’s
merits hearing, and Yang-Mei’s asylum application 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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Yang-Mei (B.I.A. Jan.
11, 2013). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
To the extent that the Board misstated the standard of
review by referring to the “likelihood” of future harm, we note
that the Board properly cited 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2) (2013)
(setting forth “reasonable possibility” standard) and several
cases discussing the standards for establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution. We therefore conclude that any resulting
error was harmless. See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 279
(4th Cir. 2011) (“We need not reverse the agency's decision if
we determine that an error clearly had no bearing on the
procedure used or the substance of the decision reached.”),
cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
3