Nishan Singh v. Loretta Lynch , 633 F. App'x 132 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1943
NISHAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 27, 2016 Decided: February 12, 2016
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nishan Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Linda Y. Cheng, Sheri Robyn
Glaser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nishan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of
Singh’s requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of
Singh’s merits hearing, the applications for relief, and all
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) (2012), and that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v.
Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Particularly, as
relevant to Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding of
removal, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
affirmance of the immigration judge’s conclusion that Singh’s
membership in either of the proposed social groups was not “one
central reason” for the past harm he sustained or the future
harm he feared. See Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 926 (4th
Cir. 2013) (noting that this court reviews factual findings for
“substantial evidence”); Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d
117, 127-28 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a persecutor’s
motive is “a classic factual question” that the Board reviews
for clear error).
2
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. July 21,
2015). 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
3