UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2078

BI RU LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 12, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New 

Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant 

Director, Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Bi Ru 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 her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying Lin’s requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. 

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact, including findings concerning the credibility of 

witnesses, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 

would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are reviewed 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). This Court 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.” Elias-Zacarias, 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 
3

is ‘conclusive unless 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 agency’s finding that Lin 

failed to meet her burden of establishing a well-founded fear of 

persecution based on the birth of her United States citizen 

children. In particular, we observe that the Board was entitled 

to give significant weight to the State Department’s China: 

Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, in which the 

State Department concluded that children born overseas are not 

counted for birth planning purposes when their parents return to 

China, and returning families face, at worst, fines or economic 

penalties.1

 We therefore uphold the denial of Lin’s 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 

 1 We also agree with the Board that the record does not 

support a finding that Lin would be fined in an amount that 

would constitute persecution or that she would be persecuted for 

non-payment of such a fine.
4

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding 

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).2

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 

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 2 Lin has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of 

her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).