UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1580

LIANG CHEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

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

Appeals

Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York, 

for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, 

Francis W. Fraser, Acting Assistant Director, Justin R. Markel, 

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s 

decision denying relief from removal. Chen disputes the finding 

that he failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

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, 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) (2012). 

This court reviews legal issues 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). We 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

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Chen 

failed to meet his statutory burdens. We therefore uphold the 

denial of Chen’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. 

See Camera 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 ineligible for asylum is 

necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 

U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”). Finally, to qualify for CAT 

protection, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that 

“it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if 

removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2013). Based on our review, we find that 

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Chen 

did not qualify for this relief.

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