Xzu Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
XZU YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
November 4, 2009
November 12, 2009
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Xzu Ying Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul Thomas Cygnarowicz, Theo Nickerson, Tyrone Sojourner, William Charles Peachey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Xzu Ying Chen, 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. Chen challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility denying for asylum. To for obtain reversal an alien of a
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 Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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 Chen did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (3) (2009). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2),
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?