Case Name: MEIFENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-23
Citations: 392 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 09-2398
Parties: MEIFENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
MEIFENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-2398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 23, 2010.
Meifeng Huang, Petitioner Pro Se. Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel, Arlington, Virginia; Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul Thomas Cygnarowicz, Tyrone Sojourner, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Meifeng Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for relief from removal.
Huang first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Huang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Huang cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
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.