Yi Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A070-571-089 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998534540] [10-1490]

Download PDF
Yi Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 10-1490 Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/01/2011 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1490 YI DONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 20, 2011 Decided: March 1, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edmund Rowan, Yueh-Mei Wu Rowan, ROWAN & ASSOCIATES, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Stefanie A. Svoren, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 10-1490 Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/01/2011 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Yi Dong Chen, 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. Chen challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility denying for asylum. To for obtain reversal an alien of a determination eligibility relief, "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 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). 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 2

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?