Chao Zheng v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090520

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1528

CHAO ZHENG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 7, 2009

Decided:

May 20, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yan Wang, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Matthew A. Spurlock, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Chao Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order

affirming the immigration judge's order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Zheng challenges the immigration

judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for

review. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, only 538 if (4th the Cir. 2006), "was and so reverse the Board's that no

decision

evidence

compelling

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 quotations and citations omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board's decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the

immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Zheng failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as

necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.

See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of 2

proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). compel denial a of different Zheng's result, we Because the record does not not disturb the Board's of

will for

application

asylum,

withholding

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3