Fei Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090331

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2082 FEI FENG YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fei Feng Yang, Petitioner Pro Se. Brianne Whelan Cohen, Daniel Eric Goldman, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fei Feng Yang, 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. Yang 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 Yang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yang cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We further uphold the finding below that Yang 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). Finally, we have reviewed the record in light of Yang's claim that her right to due process was violated by difficulties with translation during the proceedings, and we 2 find that claim to be without merit. 324 (4th Cir. 2002). We dispense therefore oral deny the Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, petition the for review. and We legal with argument because facts 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?