Song Shi v. Mukasey

Filing 920071121

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1274

SONG HUI SHI, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-687-408)

Submitted:

October 15, 2007

Decided:

November 21, 2007

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yee Ling Poon, Robert Duk-Hwan Kim, LAW OFFICES OF YEE LING POON, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Shahrzad Baghai, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Song Hui Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Shi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Shi cannot

meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Immigration Judge's finding that Shi

Further, we uphold the failed to establish

eligibility for CAT protection. (2007). Accordingly, we deny

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)

the

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.

PETITION DENIED

- 2 -