Opinion
No. 13-1706
11-04-2013
WEIHE ZHANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Weihe Zhang, Petitioner Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Weihe Zhang, Petitioner Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Weihe Zhang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to remand. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review for motions to remand). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Zhang (B.I.A. May 2, 2013). 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.
The Board's order also dismissed Zhang's appeal from the immigration judge's denial of Zhang's requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because Zhang has failed to raise any challenges in his informal brief to the agency's denial of these applications, including any challenges to the agency's initial adverse credibility determination, we find that these issues are now waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appealing parties to present specific arguments in an informal brief and stating that this court's review on appeal is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief); cf. Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)).
PETITION DENIED