Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0348-01.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

YUN LI GAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-2147.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 30, 2012.
    Decided: June 5, 2012.
    Michael J. Campise, Ferro & Cuccia, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Imran R. Zaidi, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Yun Li Gao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Gao first challenges the determination that he 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 Gao’s claims and conclude that Gao fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gao 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).

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.