Yu Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090326

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1269

YU FENG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent.

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

Submitted:

February 18, 2009

Decided:

March 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yu Feng Zhao, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Eric Warren Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Yu Feng Zhao, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China ("China"), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration ("IJ") Appeals denial of ("Board") Zhao's affirming application the for

immigration

judge's

asylum and withholding of removal. determination, establish a affirmed by the fear

Zhao challenges the IJ's that she failed to

Board, of

well-founded

future

persecution

under

China's "one-family, one-child" policy. "Applicants bear the burden of proving eligibility for asylum." Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); An alien can establish her

see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008).

eligibility for asylum by proving she has a well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(2) (2008); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at a showing of specific, in like v.

an objective and a subjective element. 187. The objective that to element would requires a

concrete

facts

lead

reasonable

person

circumstances

fear

persecution.

Gandziami-Mickhou

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). component can be met through the

"The subjective of candid,

presentation

credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of 2

the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension." Li v.

Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We will affirm a determination regarding eligibility for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 478, 481 (1992). the evidence INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

We will reverse the Board's decision "only if presented . . . 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). We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude

that it does not compel a contrary result than that reached by the Board and the IJ. seeks. Thus, we cannot grant the relief Zhao

Similarly, as Zhao does not qualify for asylum, she is See Camara v. Ashcroft,

ineligible for withholding of removal. 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 Id. We legal for

withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3)." Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts

review. and

argument

because 3

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

PETITION DENIED

4