Case Name: XZU YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-12
Citations: 350 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 08-2028
Parties: XZU YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
XZU YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 4, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 12, 2009.
Xzu Ying Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul Thomas Cygnarowicz, Theo Nickerson, Tyrone Sojourner, William Charles Peachey, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xzu Ying Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for relief from removal.
Chen 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 Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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 Chen did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3) (2009).
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.