Xuebin Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-803-559. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998457587] [09-1959]

Xuebin Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-1959 Document: 27

Date Filed: 11/02/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1959 XUEBIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Wong, LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-1959 Document: 27

Date Filed: 11/02/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Xuebin Chen, 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. Chen 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 Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below

that Chen 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). We dispense accordingly oral deny the petition the for review. and We legal

with

argument

because

facts

2

Case: 09-1959 Document: 27

Date Filed: 11/02/2010

Page: 3

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

3