Jia Weng v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-776-776 Copies to all parties and the district court. Mailed to: Jia Weng. [998896386].. [12-1349]

Appeal: 12-1349

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1349

JIA AI WENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

June 11, 2012

Decided:

July 17, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jia Ai Weng, Petitioner Pro Se.
Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1349

Doc: 20

Filed: 07/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jia

Ai

Weng,

a

native

and

citizen

of

the

People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).

We deny the petition for review.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee.
§

1158(a)

(2006).

The

INA

defines

a

refugee

as

8 U.S.C.
a

person

unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.”
“Persecution

involves

the

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
infliction

or

threat

of

death,

torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds[.]”

Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d

171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006);

see

8

C.F.R.

§

1208.13(a)

(2012),

and

can

establish

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).

“An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject of past
2

Appeal: 12-1349

Doc: 20

persecution

Filed: 07/17/2012

is

persecution.”

presumed

Pg: 3 of 4

to

have

a

well-founded

fear

of

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.

2004).
Without
establish

a

regard

well-founded

protected ground.
fear

to

standard

component.

past

fear

persecution,
of

persecution

Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at 187.

contains
The

both

objective

a

an

subjective

element

alien

based

on

can
a

The well-founded
and

requires

an
a

objective

showing

of

specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in
like circumstances to fear persecution.

Gandziami-Mickhou v.

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006).
component

can

be

met

through

the

“The subjective

presentation

of

candid,

credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of
persecution . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of
the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts
. . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension.”
Li,

405

F.3d

at

176

(internal

quotation

marks,

Qiao Hua

brackets

and

citations omitted).
A

determination

regarding

eligibility

for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence

on

the

Elias-Zacarias,
findings

of

record

502
fact

U.S.
are

considered
478,

as

a

481

(1992).

conclusive

unless

whole.

INS

Administrative
any

reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary.
3

v.

8

Appeal: 12-1349

Doc: 20

U.S.C. §

Filed: 07/17/2012

1252(b)(4)(B)

Pg: 4 of 4

(2006).

This

court

will

reverse

the

Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution.”

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see

Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

that

substantial evidence supports the finding that Weng did not show
that he was the victim of past persecution.

Thus, he was not

eligible for the presumption that he had a well-founded fear of
persecution.

We

also

conclude

that

substantial

evidence

supports the finding that Weng did not independently establish
that he had a well-founded fear of persecution.

In addition, we

conclude that Weng did not show that he was entitled to relief
under the CAT.
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

4