Chang Jiang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090309

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1545 CHANG RONG JIANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Chang Rong Jiang, 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, removal, protection Convention Against Torture (the "CAT"). Jiang first challenges the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. error in finding him not credible, and in in failing Jiang asserts to consider critical corroborating evidence, otherwise concluding that his request for asylum was not supported by substantial evidence. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for 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." Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias- We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Jiang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Jiang's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for Accordingly, we cannot withholding of removal is higher than for asylum -- even though the facts that must be proved are the same -- an applicant who is 2 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 Jiang failed to show he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Finally, request for Jiang seeks under reliance -- as review the on here CAT, an -- an of the denial of his the protection judge's Where again challenging immigration adverse adverse credibility credibility determination. determination defeats both an asylum claim and a CAT claim, we have required an applicant to present other evidence to support the CAT claim before granting a petition for review. See Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 696 n.15 (4th Cir. 2008); Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 372 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Jiang did not submit sufficient evidence to support his CAT claim, he is not entitled to relief thereon. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

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?