Hai Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091203

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2155

HAI YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

November 17, 2009

Decided:

December 3, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Hai Ying Chen, 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 her

applications for relief from removal, and denying her motion to remand. Chen challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility denying for asylum. To for obtain reversal an alien of a

determination

eligibility

relief,

"must

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude

that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen cannot meet Chen v.

the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Next, we uphold the finding below

that Chen did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (3) (2009). Finally, we have See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), reviewed Chen's claims and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to remand. Cir. 1998). 2 See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th

Accordingly, dispense with oral

we

deny

the

petition the

for facts

review. and

We legal

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3