Case Name: Fu Jing WANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-07
Citations: 117 F. App'x 862
Docket Number: No. 04-1457
Parties: Fu Jing WANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 862–863

Head Matter:
Fu Jing WANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1457.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 2004.
Decided Dec. 7, 2004.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are .not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Fu Jing Wang, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") order affirming the immigration judge's decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive "unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration judge's decision and the administrative record and find the record supports the conclusion that Wang failed to establish past persecution or a well founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief Wang seeks.
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.
Wang abandoned her challenge to the Board's denial of her applications for withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.