Biao Ren v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BIAO REN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
October 7, 2009
October 21, 2009
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Biao Ren, 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 his applications for relief from removal. Ren first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. determination denying eligibility for To obtain reversal of a 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 Ren fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ren 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 Ren failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(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?