Opinion

Vinaben Patel v. Eric Holder, Jr.

  • 555 F. App'x 229
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Feb 18, 2014
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
King, Agee, Keenan
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.1%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1882

VINABEN MANUBHAI PATEL; MANUBHAI PATEL,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: February 4, 2014 Decided: February 18, 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rishi P. Oza, ROBERT BROWN LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for

Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,

Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Lindsay B. Glauner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Vinaben Manubhai Patel and Manubhai Patel, natives and

citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from

the immigration judge’s order finding that Vinaben Patel, the

primary petitioner, was not eligible for adjustment of status.

The Petitioners claim that the Board erred in this regard. We

deny the petition for review.

We review administrative findings of fact for

substantial evidence and will consider those findings conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled to

conclude to the contrary. Legal issues determined by the Board

are reviewed de novo. Abdel-Rahman v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444,

448 (4th Cir. 2007). We have thoroughly reviewed the record

and conclude that the factual findings are supported by

substantial evidence and there was no error regarding the legal

issues.

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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.