UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1198

SHANQUAN LIN, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals. 

Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: January 14, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Wenyue Lu, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. LU, LLC, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T. 

Cygnarowicz, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Shanquan 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 order denying asylum, withholding from 

removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture and 

denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. 

 The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer 

asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a 

refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native 

country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). “Persecution involves the 

infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s 

person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds 

. . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility 

for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 

2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008), and can establish 

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country 

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) 

(2008). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

2 
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 

2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both a 

subjective and an objective component. “The objective element 

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a 

reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.” 

Id. at 187-88. “The subjective component can be met through the 

presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony 

demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It must 

have] some basis in the reality of the circumstances and [be] 

validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be 

mere irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 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 on credibility, are conclusive unless 

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the 

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). 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). 

3 
4 

 We find substantial evidence supports the immigration 

judge’s and the Board’s findings. Clearly, Lin failed to meet 

his burden of establishing the objective element of his claim 

for relief. We do not find that the record compels a different 

result. 

 We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion 

in denying the motion to remand. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 

F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review). 

 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

 

 

 *

 We note we are without jurisdiction to review many of the 

issues Lin raises in his brief because the issues were not 

properly exhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); 

Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir. 

2006) (“[T]he alien must raise each argument to the [Board] 

before we have jurisdiction to consider it.”).