Wang v. Mukasey
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIN QING WANG, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-911-532)
October 31, 2007
December 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kathryn L. Moore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jin Qing Wang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Wang challenges
the immigration judge's finding that his testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden of proving
eligibility for asylum.
We will reverse this decision only if the
evidence "was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution," Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold credibility determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence, Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board's decision and find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Wang failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
Wang does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, and therefore, this claim is abandoned. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge).
- 2 -
persecution on a protected ground, as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, because Wang cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
("Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3) [(2000)]."). Accordingly, we deny Wang's petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?