Case Name: ZHIQIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-02
Citations: 463 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 11-1456
Parties: ZHIQIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 186–186

Head Matter:
ZHIQIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2012.
Jim Li, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, Katherine A. Smith, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zhiqiang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Wang's motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for relief from removal.
Wang first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain i'eversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder 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 Wang's claims and conclude that Wang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Wang 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). Finally, we conclude based on our review that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang's motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir.2007).
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.