Wei Ding v. Loretta Lynch
671 F. App'x 198
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Wei Ding, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal before an Immigration Judge; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.
- The agency found Ding's asylum application untimely and concluded no statutory exceptions applied.
- The BIA denied withholding of removal on the merits based on the record evidence.
- The BIA denied cancellation of removal because Ding failed to show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative.
- Ding also moved to change venue and alleged IJ bias; the agency denied the motion and found no prejudice or bias warranting relief.
- Ding did not contest denial of CAT relief or adjustment of status on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum | Ding argued exceptions should excuse untimeliness | Government maintained asylum was time-barred and no exceptions applied | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over asylum-time determinations under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) |
| Withholding of removal | Ding argued record compelled finding of persecution or clear probability of harm | Government argued record did not compel such a finding | Petition denied; substantial evidence supports BIA denial (no compelled contrary finding) |
| Cancellation of removal (discretion) | Ding argued hardship showed eligibility and merited favorable exercise of discretion | Government argued Ding failed to establish required exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; discretionary denial not reviewable | Court lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary denial absent a constitutional or legal question; claim not reviewable |
| Venue motion and IJ bias | Ding argued improper venue and IJ bias prejudiced proceedings | Government defended agency's discretionary venue decision and fairness of proceedings | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2009) (limits judicial review of asylum-timeliness determinations)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial-evidence standard in withholding review)
- Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2011) (no jurisdiction to review discretionary cancellation denials absent legal or constitutional question)
- Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (standards for venue and bias review and prejudice requirement)