Yun Gao v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-465-279. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998867938] [11-2147]

Appeal: 11-2147

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/05/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2147

YUN LI GAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

May 30, 2012

Decided:

June 5, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Campise, FERRO & CUCCIA, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P.
Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Imran R. Zaidi, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2147

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/05/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Yun Li Gao, 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.
Gao first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish eligibility for asylum.

To obtain reversal of a

determination

relief,

denying

eligibility

for

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).

We

INS
have

v.

Elias-Zacarias,

reviewed

the

evidence

502
of

U.S.

478,

record

483-84

and

Gao’s

claims and conclude that Gao fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum,

Gao 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).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

petition

because

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.

PETITION DENIED

2