UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2182

HUA LIN, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: May 29, 2009 Decided: July 6, 2009 

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

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

Jersey, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Kathryn M. McKinney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

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

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Hua Lin, a native and citizen 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 her applications for asylum, withholding from removal 

and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and 

denying her motion to remand. Lin claimed she did not want to 

return to China for fear of being forcibly sterilized due to her 

having given birth to three children in the United States. 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 or her 

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).*

 

(Continued) 

*

 In her brief, although citing the law supporting 

withholding from removal and relief under the CAT, Lin fails to 

make any argument that the Board erred in denying either of 

2 
 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) (2009), and can establish 

refugee status based on past persecution in his or her native 

country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.13(b)(1) (2009). “An applicant who demonstrates that he 

was the subject of past persecution is presumed to have a wellfounded fear of persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). Without regard to past persecution, 

an alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a 

protected ground. Id. at 187. The well-founded fear standard 

contains both a subjective and an objective component. “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, 

 

those forms of relief. Furthermore, she does not challenge the 

Board’s finding that she did not argue on appeal that it was 

more likely than not that she will be tortured if she were to 

return to China. Those claims are waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain . . . 

appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations 

to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 

appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 

241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific 

dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim 

triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”); see also

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

3 
concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational 

apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). The objective element requires a 

showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable 

person in like circumstances to fear persecution. GandziamiMickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). 

 A sterilization is deemed to be persecution and “a 

person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced 

to undergo such a procedure . . . shall be deemed to have a 

well founded fear of persecution on account of political 

opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B)(2006). 

 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. 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). 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.” EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 

 Because Lin did not claim past persecution she must 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution, which she claims 

4 
5 

she did through her credible testimony and evidence. We find 

the record does not compel a different result. The Board was 

entitled to address the background evidence supporting Lin’s 

claim in summary fashion. The Board reviewed this and similar 

evidence in prior decisions. See Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 

(2d Cir. 2006); Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 

2007); Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007) and 

Matter of C-C-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 899 (BIA 2006). Furthermore, 

Lin’s personal evidence supporting her claim was of questionable 

weight and uncorroborated. 

 We also find the Board did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Lin’s motion to remand. 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