UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1224

YONG HUANG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 5, 2012

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adedayo O. Idowu, LAW OFFICES OF ADEDAYO O. IDOWU, PLLC, New 

York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., 

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Yong Huang, 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 of the 

Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal. Huang 

first disputes the finding that he failed to qualify for asylum, 

contending that he demonstrated past persecution and asserting 

that the Board erred in concluding that his resistance to 

China’s coercive population control policy was not one central 

reason for the alleged persecution.

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). Legal issues are 

reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations.” Li 

Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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.” 
3

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 

316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that 

Huang failed to show that he suffered past persecution or has a 

well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore uphold

the denial of Huang’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, Huang challenges the denial of his 

application for protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). To qualify for this relief, 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) (2012). We have reviewed 

the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED