Fei Lin v. Holder ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1112
FEI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 28, 2009 Decided: August 13, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part, and dismissed in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Fei Lin, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Jem Colleen Sponzo, Tyrone Sojourner,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for
relief from removal.
Lin 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
(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin 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 (1987). Finally, Lin challenges the denial of
relief on his claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Because Lin did not raise this claim in his appeal to the Board,
we find that it has not been properly exhausted. See 8 U.S.C.
1252(d)(1) (2006). We thus lack jurisdiction to review Lin’s
claim for CAT protection.
2
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART,
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3