# Lin v. Gonzales

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 10, 2005 · 133 F. App'x 882

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016317

## Case

- **Full name:** Bin LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 10, 2005
- **Citations:** 133 F. App'x 882
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Luttig, Michael, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016317

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1959

BIN LIN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-318-713)

Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: June 10, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Jaffe, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Benjamin D. Brown, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Bin Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture.

Lin contends that he established eligibility for asylum.

As the IJ concluded that the asylum application was untimely, we

find that consideration of Lin’s asylum claim is barred. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Lin next asserts that he was denied

due process at the asylum hearing because his testimony was rushed

due to the interpreter’s need to leave early for a medical

appointment. We reject this claim because Lin fails to show that

he was prejudiced by the alleged violation. See Rusu v. INS, 296

F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002).

We accordingly 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016317. Public record. Not legal advice.