Yan Zheng v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920081218

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1355

YAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 8, 2008

Decided:

December 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Yan Zheng, 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. Zheng first challenges the determination that she

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for

To obtain reversal 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." (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude

that Zheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Zheng 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below

that Zheng failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

2

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

PETITION DENIED

3