Zhi-Ming Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ZHI-MING LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
March 20, 2009
March 31, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Zhi-Ming Lin, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration withholding judge's of denial and of his requests under for the asylum,
Against Torture. Before this court, Lin challenges the determination To for
that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
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." U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 reviewed the evidence of
record and conclude that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lin's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for Accordingly, we cannot grant the
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though In upholding the denial of asylum relief, we specifically reject Lin's claim that the immigration judge unreasonably relied on a letter from his former counsel and find that consideration of the letter was not fundamentally unfair. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3)." 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). that he is eligible for asylum, Camara v. Ashcroft,
Because Lin failed to show he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Lin failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an
applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." failed court. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). the requisite showing before We find that Lin the immigration
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?