Yu Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090326

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1269 YU FENG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?