# Vinaben Patel v. Eric Holder, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 18, 2014 · 555 F. App'x 229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2653600

## Case

- **Full name:** Vinaben Manubhai PATEL; Manubhai Patel, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 2014
- **Citations:** 555 F. App'x 229
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Agee, Keenan
- **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/2653600

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2653600. Public record. Not legal advice.