Xi Ying Zheng v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2188
XI YING ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Matthew
A. Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Xi Ying Zheng (Zheng), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China
(PRC), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (a) dismissing
Zheng’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and
ordering Zheng removed to the PRC; and (b) denying Zheng’s motion to remand her
proceedings to the immigration court for consideration of new evidence. We deny the
petition for review.
Regarding the order of removal, the Board adopted and affirmed the immigration
judge’s decision, which included an adverse credibility finding and related adverse
corroboration ruling, as well as alternative, merits-based rulings to support the denial of
Zheng’s applications for relief. In this court, Zheng presents an extensive challenge to the
adverse credibility finding, but does not address the agency’s alternative rationale for
denying relief. Accordingly, we hold that these issues, which are independently dispositive
of Zheng’s applications, are forfeited, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland,
72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party forfeits appellate review of those
issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs), which obviates the need to review
Zheng’s challenges to the adverse credibility finding.
Next, we have reviewed the Board’s denial of Zheng’s motion to remand for
consideration of new evidence related to her future persecution claim and discern no abuse
of discretion in this ruling. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005)
(providing standard of review and explaining two contexts in which the Board may remand

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a matter to the immigration court); see accord Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1063
(5th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “[t]he Board may evaluate new evidence on a motion for
remand to assess whether or not that evidence meets the stringent requirements for remand”
and affirming the Board’s denial of a motion to remand for consideration of petitioner’s
new evidence when that “new evidence was similar to evidence already considered and
rejected by the [immigration judge]”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See
In re Xi Ying Zheng (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 2023).
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

-- 3 of 3 --