UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1107

HUI FANG XIAO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, 

Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Branch Director, Matthew A. 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Hui Fang Xiao, 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 denial of her requests for asylum and 

withholding of removal.

Xiao first challenges the determination that she 

failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence [s]he 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). We have reviewed the evidence of record and 

conclude that Xiao fails to demonstrate that the evidence 

compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial 

evidence supports the denial of relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Xiao’s 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 Xiao failed to 
3

establish that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the 

higher standard for withholding of removal.

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

 ∗ It does not appear that Xiao requested relief under the 

Convention Against Torture before the immigration judge; the 

Board nonetheless addressed Xiao’s contention on appeal that she 

was entitled to such relief. Although the Board’s decision to 

address this issue arguably excused Xiao’s failure to raise it 

before the immigration judge, cf. Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of 

Homeland Security, 446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (6th Cir. 2006), we note 

that she failed to raise any specific claims regarding her 

eligibility for such relief before this court. We therefore 

conclude that Xiao has waived appellate review of this claim. 

See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th 

Cir. 1999).