UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1266
XIA LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: June 18, 2014
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition granted in part and remanded; and denied in part by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nataliya I. Gavlin, GAVLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Yedidy A. Cohen, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xia 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 her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s denial of her requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. 1 Lin asserts on appeal that she
established eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal by
demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
her violation of China’s family planning policy due to the
births of her two United States citizen children, and on account
of her Christian faith.
We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record
and agency decisions and conclude that the record contains
“powerful contradictory evidence” to that relied on by the Board
in determining that Lin failed to qualify for asylum and
withholding of removal based on her family planning claim. See
Ai Hua Chen v. Holder, 742 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2014). We
accordingly grant the petition for review in part and remand
1
In her opening brief, Lin fails to raise any meaningful
challenge to the denial of her request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, we conclude that
Lin has abandoned her CAT claim on appeal. See Ngarurih v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
Lin’s family planning claim to the Board for further proceedings
in light of our decision in Ai Hua Chen. 2
Next, we have reviewed the record and claims relevant
to Lin’s claim based on her Christian faith, and conclude that
the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to that of
the Board, and that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Lin did not establish eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal on this ground. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). We therefore deny the petition for review in part with
respect to this claim.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in part
and remand, and deny the petition for review in part. 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 GRANTED IN PART AND REMANDED;
AND DENIED IN PART
2
The Board’s further proceedings may include a review of
the Immigration Judge’s determination that Lin’s asylum
application is time-barred and that she failed to show that she
qualified under any exception to the one-year filing
requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a).
3