Case Name: RU DING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 437 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 10-2168
Parties: RU DING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
RU DING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-2168.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 28, 2011.
Decided: July 5, 2011.
Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. HandUber, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ru Ding Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for relief from removal.
Zhang first challenges the determination that he 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, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Zhang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Zhang 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.