Case Name: DAW MANG CINGH HUAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-20
Citations: 332 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 08-1781
Parties: DAW MANG CINGH HUAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
DAW MANG CINGH HUAI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
No. 08-1781.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2009.
Decided: Aug. 20, 2009.
Daw Mang Cingh Huai, Petitioner Pro Se. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Marshall Tamor Golding, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daw Mang Cingh Huai, a native and citizen of Burma, 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.
Huai 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 fact- finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 488-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Huai fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Huai 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 uphold the finding below that Huai failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Burma. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
We therefore 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.