Case Name: Xian An CAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Citations: 157 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 05-1572
Parties: Xian An CAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Xian An CAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 05-1572.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2005.
Decided Dec. 9, 2005.
Dehai Zhang, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Xian An Cao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Cao challenges the finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify for asylum based on his claim of religious persecution.
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 Cao fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. In addition, we find that we are without jurisdiction to consider Cao's claim based on China's coercive family planning policies because Cao has failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to that claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000).
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