Hai Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091203

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2155 HAI YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?