Case ID: f-appx_460/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUICHUN LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1077.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 21, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 5, 2012.
    
      Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Huichun Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.

Lin first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Lin failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.