UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1408

WEI QIANG LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 16, 2013 Decided: September 19, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. 

Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Janice K. Redfern, 

Senior Litigation Counsel, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wei Qiang Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the 

petition for review.

We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility 

for asylum or withholding of removal if it is supported by 

substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS 

v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative 

findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 

adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We review legal issues de novo, 

“affording appropriate deference to the [Board]’s interpretation 

of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant 

regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th 

Cir. 2008). We will reverse the Board only if “the evidence 

. . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder 

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that 

an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless 
3

manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’” 

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the finding that Lin failed 

to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of 

future persecution in China. We therefore uphold the denial of 

his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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).”). 

Additionally, Lin challenges the denial of his request 

for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify 

for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of 

showing “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) (2013). Based on our review of the 

record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 

F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of 

review). 
4

We therefore 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