Chai Cheung v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A072-484-276 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999089604].. [12-2037]

Appeal: 12-2037

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2037

CHAI BANG CHEUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 19, 2013

Decided:

April 18, 2013

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Stuart F.
Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard M.
Evans, Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2037

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Chai Bang Cheung, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of

Immigration

Immigration

Appeals

Judge’s

(Board)

decision

dismissing
denying

his

appeal

relief

from

of

the

removal.

Cheung first disputes the finding that he failed to qualify for
asylum,

contending

that

he

demonstrated

past

persecution

and

asserting that the Board erred in concluding that he failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of forced sterilization or an
excessive fine if he returns to China with his three United
States citizen children.
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,

considered

U.S.

478,

including

481

as

a

whole.

(1992).

findings

on

INS

v.

Administrative
credibility,

are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to decide to the contrary.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).

Legal

de

issues

deference

to

are

reviewed

the

BIA’s

novo,

interpretation

“affording
of

the

appropriate
INA

and

any

attendant regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685,

691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

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
2

Appeal: 12-2037

Doc: 25

Filed: 04/18/2013

persecution.”

Pg: 3 of 4

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 evidence of record and conclude
that

substantial

evidence

supports

the

agency’s

finding

that

Cheung failed to meet his burden of establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution.

We therefore uphold the denial of Cheung’s

requests for asylum and withholding of removal.

See Camera v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum—
even

though

the

facts

that

must

be

proved

are

the

same—an

applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Finally,

Cheung

challenges

the

denial

of

his

application for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).

To

qualify

for

this

relief,

a

petitioner

bears

the

burden of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he
or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).

We have reviewed

the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

petition

because

3

the

for
facts

review.
and

We
legal

Appeal: 12-2037

Doc: 25

contentions

are

Filed: 04/18/2013

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

4