Hai Ying Chen v. Holder , 355 F. App'x 678 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-2155
    HAI YING CHEN,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   November 17, 2009               Decided:   December 3, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary J. Yerman, YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, New York, New York,
    for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
    General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan
    Robbins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
    Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Hai   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, and denying her motion to
    remand.
    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
    (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 (1987).             Next, 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).      Finally,     we       have    reviewed      Chen’s    claims       and
    conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
    her motion to remand.       See Onyeme v. INS, 
    146 F.3d 227
    , 234 (4th
    Cir. 1998).
    2
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2155

Citation Numbers: 355 F. App'x 678

Judges: Wilkinson, Michael, King

Filed Date: 12/3/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024