Xiao Wu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100208

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1454

XIAO YUAN WU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

January 13, 2010

Decided:

February 8, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xiao Yuan Wu, Petitioner Pro Se. Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel, Arlington, Virginia; Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Xiao Yuan Wu, 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. Wu 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). that Wu INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Wu cannot meet the Chen v.

more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987)). Finally, we uphold the

finding below that Wu 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

argument

because

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3