Liang Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A095-769-895 Copies to all parties and the agency. [999246489].. [13-1580]

Appeal: 13-1580

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1580

LIANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of then Board of Immigration
Appeals

Submitted:

November 18, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
Francis W. Fraser, Acting Assistant Director, Justin R. Markel,
OFFICE
OF
IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1580

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for

review

(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

his

of

the

appeal

Board
of

decision denying relief from removal.

of

the

Immigration
Immigration

Appeals
Judge’s

Chen disputes the finding

that he failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
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

(1992).

findings

on

whole.

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) (2012).

This court reviews legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the [Board’s] interpretation of the [Immigration
and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.”

Li Fang

Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

We 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).

2

Appeal: 13-1580

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Chen
failed to meet his statutory burdens.

We therefore uphold the

denial of Chen’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
See

Camera

(“Because

v.

the

Ashcroft,
burden

of

378

F.3d

proof

for

361,

367

(4th

withholding

Cir.

of

2004)

removal

is

higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved
are

the

same—an

necessarily
U.S.C.]

applicant

ineligible

for

who

is

ineligible

withholding

§ 1231(b)(3).”).

asylum

is

removal

under

[8

Finally,

qualify

for

of
to

for

CAT

protection, 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

§ 1208.16(c)(2)

proposed
(2013).

country
Based

on

of

removal.”

our

review,

8
we

C.F.R.

find

that

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Chen
did not qualify for this relief.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

we

deny

argument

adequately

the

petition

because

presented

in

the
the

for
facts

review.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3