UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1622

JIA ZHANG CHEN; DAN FENG GAO,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jia Zhang Chen, Dan Feng Gao, Petitioners Pro Se. Robbin 

Kinmonth Blaya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jia Zhang Chen and his wife, Dan Feng Gao

(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the 

People’s Republic of China, petition for review of two separate 

orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing 

their appeals from the immigration judge’s denial of their 

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. 

The Petitioners first challenge the determination that 

they failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence he [or she] 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). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an 

alien is not eligible for asylum 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)).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that 

the Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the evidence in their 

case compels a contrary result. As found by the Board, the 

Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the birth of their 

United States citizen children violated family planning policies 
3

in the Fujian Province or that they will be subject to forced 

sterilization or other persecution if returned to China. See

Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (B.I.A. 2007) (relying on 

State Department reports and concluding that the alien’s 

evidence failed to demonstrate that China has a policy of 

requiring forced sterilization of a parent who returns with 

children born abroad or that any sanctions imposed in the Fujian 

Province would rise to the level of persecution). We therefore 

find that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ 

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 

the Petitioners failed to establish that they are eligible for 

asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of 

removal.

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the finding that the Petitioners 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 
4

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Based on 

our review, we agree that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate 

that they will more likely than not be tortured due to any 

violation of China’s family planning policies or for violating 

their country’s illegal exit laws. See Xia Yue Chen v. 

Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 2005); Matter of J-W-S-, 24 

I. & N. Dec. at 195. 

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