Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01140/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01140-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Xiu Y. Huang
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1140

XIU Y. HUANG,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. 

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 25, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter D. Lobel, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S.

Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez

Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1140 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Xiu Yi Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic 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 requests for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Huang first challenges the determination that she failed

to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show

that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Huang

fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Huang’s request for

withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Huang failed to show that

she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.

Appeal: 08-1140 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
*We lack jurisdiction over Huang’s evidentiary challenges on

the ground that she failed to raise them on appeal to the Board.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order

of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative

remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft,

362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that we lack

jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised before the

Board). 

3

We also find that substantial evidence supports the

finding that Huang failed to meet the standard for relief under the

Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant

must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). We find that Huang failed to make

the requisite showing before the immigration court. 

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

Appeal: 08-1140 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/25/2008 Pg: 3 of 3