Xiao Wu v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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.
January 13, 2010
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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
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?