Chen Jing v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHEN JING, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
June 22, 2009
July 24, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Y. Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Matthew A. Spurlock, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Chen Jing, 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 her appeal from the immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The INA We deny the petition for review. the Attorney General to confer
asylum on any refugee.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006).
It defines a
refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her native country "because on of persecution of or a well-founded religion, fear of
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death, "Persecution involves the or injury to one's
person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. . . ." Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). An alien "bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum," Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. (2009). Without regard to past 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) persecution, an alien can
establish ground. 2004).
persecution F.3d 182,
protected (4th Cir. a
subjective and an objective component.
The objective element
requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in v. like circumstances 445 F.3d can and to fear persecution. (4th Cir. the
Gandziami-Mickhou 2006). "The
subjective of candid,
demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be
validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension." Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show a clear probability that, if she were removed to her native country, her "life or freedom would be threatened" on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); see A "clear
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
probability" means that it is more likely than not the alien would be subject to persecution. 429-30 (1984). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407,
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 3
evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
INS v. Elias-
Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, "affording appropriate deference to the BIA's interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations." This . . .
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). court will reverse the Board only if "the evidence
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). final decision for this The immigration judge's order is the court's review as a result of the
Board's affirmance without opinion. F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2003). We finding that find Jing substantial did not
Khattak v. Ashcroft, 332
Board's fear of
persecution. qualify for
Because Jing did not meet her burden of proof to asylum, she is necessarily ineligible for
withholding of removal. 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
We also find the Board did not engage in We further find the Board did not err
any improper factfinding.
in finding that Jing did not establish that it was more likely 4
than not she will be tortured if returned to China; thus, Jing is not eligible for relief under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c)(2) (2009). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal
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?