Case ID: f-appx_303/html/0160-01.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

Yan ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-1355.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 8, 2008.
    Decided: Dec. 18, 2008.
    Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Yan Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.

Zheng 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 Zheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Zheng cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fouseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Zheng 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) (2008).

Accordingly, we 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.