UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1520
FANG SHU LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 23, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael J. Campise, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Jamie M.
Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fang Shu Lin, 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 Lin’s applications for asylum,
withholding of deportation, protection under the Convention
Against Torture, and adjustment of status. Because Lin does not
challenge the denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding, or protection under the Convention Against Torture,
our review is limited to the agency’s finding that Lin is
statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record as it pertains
to Lin’s application for adjustment of status and conclude that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lin
failed to credibly establish that he was inspected and admitted
into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006). We
therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Fang Shu Lin (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3