Case Name: Biao REN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-21
Citations: 347 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 09-1190
Parties: Biao REN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 347
Pages: 975–976

Head Matter:
Biao REN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-1190.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2009.
Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Biao Ren, 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 his applications for relief from removal.
Ren 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 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 Ren fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ren 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 Ren failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (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.