Peng Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Filing
920100528
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1881
PENG LIU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted:
May 10, 2010
Decided:
May 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen Gardner, Benjamin Vinocour, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Peng Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for relief from removal. Liu 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 Liu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Liu 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). Next, we uphold the finding below
that Liu 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) (2010).
Finally, we have considered Liu's claim
that he was denied due process due to problems with translation during the hearing and conclude that such claim lacks merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008). 2
Accordingly, dispense with oral
we
deny
the
petition the
for facts
review. and
We legal
argument
because
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?