UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1469
ALIBEK V. TURKAYEV; VERA BELAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, YOUMAN, MADEO & FASANO, LLP, New York, New
York, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Gregory D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Kathryn L. DeAngelis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alibek V. Turkayev and Vera Belan (collectively,
“Petitioners”) petition the Court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“Board’s”) order dismissing their appeal
of the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying the
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) filed by Turkayev,
a native and citizen of Kazakhstan. We have thoroughly examined
the record and the contentions of the parties, and we deny the
petition for review.
When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must
uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible
for asylum or withholding of removal unless the Board’s
determination is “manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of
discretion.” Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir.
2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal
questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while
“administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Crespin-
Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011).
Consequently, the Board’s determination regarding eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal will be affirmed if it is
2
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
The Petitioners’ claim before this court is very
narrow: they simply contend that the Board improperly engaged in
factfinding when it determined that they were not prejudiced by
the conduct of the attorney who represented them before the IJ,
such that they did not receive ineffective assistance of
counsel. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s opinion,
and we conclude that the Petitioners’ arguments are without
merit.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3