Case ID: f-appx_461/html/0339-01.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

HUI CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 21, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 13, 2012.
    Gregory Marotta, Law Office of Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley Y. Martin, United States
    Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hui Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) vacating the Immigration Judge’s grant of her application for asylum, and ordering her removed from the United States.

Chen 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 find that the Board applied the proper standard of review, and that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels the conclusion that she qualified for asylum. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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).

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.